|
Post by molagga on Jan 15, 2010 21:41:27 GMT
Sacrosanctum Concilium Chapter VI
CHAPTER
VI SACRED MUSIC
112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.
Holy Scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song [42], and the same may be said of the fathers of the Church and of the Roman pontiffs who in recent times, led by St. Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial function supplied by sacred music in the service of the Lord.
Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.
Accordingly, the sacred Council, keeping to the norms and precepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful, decrees as follows.
113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people.
As regards the language to be used, the provisions of Art. 36 are to be observed; for the Mass, Art. 54; for the sacraments, Art. 63; for the divine office. Art. 101.
114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.
115. Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music.
It is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred music whenever this can be done.
Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
117. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.
It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.
118. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.
119. In certain parts of the world, especially mission lands, there are peoples who have their own musical traditions, and these play a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason due importance is to be attached to their music, and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their attitude toward religion, but also in adapting worship to their native genius, as indicated in Art. 39 and 40.
Therefore, when missionaries are being given training in music, every effort should be made to see that they become competent in promoting the traditional music of these peoples, both in schools and in sacred services, as far as may be practicable.
120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.
But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.
121. Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.
Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small choirs and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the faithful.
The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy scripture and from liturgical sources.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2010 11:01:56 GMT
Whast exactly do you mean, molagga, by your dismissive remark about "the only reasonable questionmark" in relation to Mozart and Haydn? My point was that art. 6 of Pius X's document, which you have so kindly posted, was generally taken as excluding Mozart Masses for the liturgy. (I imagine it would apply to Haydn as well.) I also note that the extact from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM which you posted refers to the desirability of encouraging congregational singing, and this can be problematic where there is excessive emphasis on the Choir. I might add that I remember attending at least one sung EF Mass in which large parts of the text which ought to be spoken by the priest were sung by the choir! I am not absolutely sure that the priest did not repeat them inaudibly, and I am certain that he rather than the choir said the Consecration, but IMHO this is not desirable.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 14:03:07 GMT
Well, here is article 6 of Tra le sollecitudini (the text of which I am please to hear you have been able to read) and let us see what it says of Mozart and Haydn:
"6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century [i.e. between 1800 and 1899]. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music".
Please note that Pius X is talking abut a musical context which temporally extends for the period between 1800 and 1899. Moreover, as we might expect, he refers toa spacial context which especially refers to Italy. In order to acertain the precise object of his condemnation, it wuld be unreasonable to undertake a study of the prevalent music used in Italy in the liturgy bewteen 1800 and 1899.
When we speak of Mozart or Haydn we are talking of Austria and we are talking of the music used in the liturgy in its highest forms - a tradition which, despite everything, still continues. I have reread Tra Le Sollectudini and I have found no explicit reference to Mozart or Haydn or even to Schubert. I also note several references to faculties being given to loca ordinaries allowing them to permit the use of instruments other than the organ in the liturgy.
I think all of that amounts to a much more nuanced and qualified outlook than the rather blunt one which regards liturgical music as consisting of Gregorian chant only - and one which only recently discovered that polophony has been explicitely approved for liturgical use since the Council of Trent.
Please note that Tra le Sollecitudini deals with the RESTORATION of Gregorian AND polophony in a context which requires the explicit removal of SOME elements from that context (as it existed in 1904) but by no means ALL of the elements then extant in the particular contexst. So, we are dealing with a case of ADDING something to what is good in what we have and NOT with an extremist and uncritical REPLACEMENT of everything that we had in 1904.
The point seems simple enough!
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 14:12:58 GMT
I might add that I remember attending at least one sung EF Mass in which large parts of the text which ought to be spoken by the priest were sung by the choir! I am not absolutely sure that the priest did not repeat them inaudibly, and I am certain that he rather than the choir said the Consecration, but IMHO this is not desirable. As for the rubric llaid down by the Church for the Missa Solemnis, I would suggest that you consult the Missale Romanum of 1962 -which was the last pre-conciliar edition of the Missale Romanum of 1570. And, I am sure that any concentious priest would have celebrated the Mass to the best of his abilit in strict accordance with that rubric. As for the priest saying the word of institution, I would take that to be absolutely accurate and correct. Indeed, I think it would raise an eyebrow or two were you to suggest that they should only be sung by the choir. It seems to me, hibernicus (or is hibernus?) that a stint in one of the French monmasteries whcih have preserved the usus antiquior could really be benificial in discovering at first hand the great treasure that is the Missa Solemnis (or Pontificalis) and might encourage a true Catholic appreciation of it.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 14:13:57 GMT
I might add that I remember attending at least one sung EF Mass in which large parts of the text which ought to be spoken by the priest were sung by the choir! I am not absolutely sure that the priest did not repeat them inaudibly, and I am certain that he rather than the choir said the Consecration, but IMHO this is not desirable. As for the rubric laid down by the Church for the Missa Solemnis, I would suggest that you consult the Missale Romanum of 1962 -which was the last pre-conciliar edition of the Missale Romanum of 1570. And, I am sure that any concentious priest would have celebrated the Mass to the best of his ability in strict accordance with that rubric. As for the priest saying the word of institution, I would take that to be absolutely accurate and correct. Indeed, I think it would raise an eyebrow or two were you to suggest that they should only be sung by the choir. It seems to me, hibernicus (or is hibernus?) that a stint in one of the French monmasteries whcih have preserved the usus antiquior could really be benificial in discovering at first hand the great treasure that is the Missa Solemnis (or Pontificalis) and might encourage a true Catholic appreciation of it.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 14:15:19 GMT
Well, here is article 6 of Tra le sollecitudini (the text of which I am please to hear you have been able to read) and let us see what it says of Mozart and Haydn: "6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century [i.e. between 1800 and 1899]. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music". Please note that Pius X is talking abut a musical context which temporally extends for the period between 1800 and 1899. Moreover, as we might expect, he refers toa spacial context which especially refers to Italy. In order to acertain the precise object of his condemnation, it would not be unreasonable to undertake a study of the prevalent music used in Italy in the liturgy bewteen 1800 and 1899. When we speak of Mozart or Haydn we are talking of Austria and we are talking of the music used in the liturgy in its highest forms - a tradition which, despite everything, still continues. I have reread Tra Le Sollectudini and I have found no explicit reference to Mozart or Haydn or even to Schubert. I also note several references to faculties being given to loca ordinaries allowing them to permit the use of instruments other than the organ in the liturgy. I think all of that amounts to a much more nuanced and qualified outlook than the rather blunt one which regards liturgical music as consisting of Gregorian chant only - and one which only recently discovered that polophony has been explicitely approved for liturgical use since the Council of Trent. Please note that Tra le Sollecitudini deals with the RESTORATION of Gregorian AND polophony in a context which requires the explicit removal of SOME elements from that context (as it existed in 1904) but by no means ALL of the elements then extant in the particular contexst. So, we are dealing with a case of ADDING something to what is good in what we have and NOT with an extremist and uncritical REPLACEMENT of everything that we had in 1904. The point seems simple enough!
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 18, 2010 15:43:10 GMT
Perhaps Molagga might comment on the fact that Lassus Scholars (or as many call them Lassus squallers) members found themselves admitting with embarrassment to clergy in Rome that they were not regular church goers. This is not the type of choir I would see as appropriate to promote in a liturgical context. They are welcome to the concert hall.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2010 16:01:23 GMT
Thank you, Molagga, for complimenting me on my literacy skills. Unfortunately you do not seem to have heard of the point, equally basic to good debate, that the opponent is entitled to have his knowledge of the points of issue taken for granted until his ignorance is established. My objection was not (as you imply) to the fact that the priest rather than the choir said the words of consecration, but to the fact that he said very little else and that most of the words meant to be spoken by him were taken over by the choir. This sort of minimalism leads straight to the so-called Palmarian Rite (which, as our readers may be aware, consists ONLY of the words of consecration) albeit with a nice concert accompaniment. Similarly, I am quite well aware that monastic liturgy is the model for true liturgical renewal; the question is whether it is the congregation as the whole, or simply the celebrants, who are to take on the role of the monastic community. I think Alasdair is being a bit hard on the Lassus Scholars, even if what he says is true. Quite a few of the artists whose work adorns churches in Rome and elsewhere were not exactly models of piety. perhaps their work may be a means of grace to them.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 16:44:46 GMT
"equally basic to good debate, that the opponent is entitled to have his knowledge of the points of issue taken for granted until his ignorance is established".
Thank you explicitating a point I have been trying to circumvent for quite some time when dealing with this subject.
For further elucidation, I reproduce here some extracts from Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII published in 1947:
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
82. The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly power. It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your flocks.
83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned[82] teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.
84. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. But we deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the people.[83] The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the divine Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess the sacerdotal power.
83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned[82] teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.
84. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. But we deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the people.[83] The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the divine Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess the sacerdotal power.
83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned[82] teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.
84. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. But we deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the people.[83] The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the divine Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess the sacerdotal power.
85. All this has the certitude of faith. However, it must also be said that the faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense.
86. This has already been stated in the clearest terms by some of Our predecessors and some Doctors of the Church. "Not only," says Innocent III of immortal memory, "do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention."[84] We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine's many statements on this subject. "The sacrifice," he says "is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him."[85]
87. Moreover, the rites and prayers of the eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the oblation of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: "Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;"[86] but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same. The following words, for example, are used: "For whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee . . . We therefore beseech thee, O Lord, to be appeased and to receive this offering of our bounded duty, as also of thy whole household. . . We thy servants, as also thy whole people . . . do offer unto thy most excellent majesty, of thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a pure victim, a holy victim, a spotless victim."[87]
88. Nor is it to be wondered at, that the faithful should be raised to this dignity. By the waters of baptism, as by common right, Christians are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and by the "character" which is imprinted on their souls, they are appointed to give worship to God. Thus they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.
89. In every age of the Church's history, the mind of man, enlightened by faith, has aimed at the greatest possible knowledge of things divine. It is fitting, then, that the Christian people should also desire to know in what sense they are said in the canon of the Mass to offer up the sacrifice. To satisfy such a pious desire, then, We shall here explain the matter briefly and concisely.
90. First of all the more extrinsic explanations are these: it frequently happens that the faithful assisting at Mass join their prayers alternately with those of the priest, and sometimes - a more frequent occurrence in ancient times - they offer to the ministers at the altar bread and wine to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, and, finally, by their alms they get the priest to offer the divine victim for their intentions.
92. In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word "offer." The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.
93. Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ. But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office: rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father. It is obviously necessary that the external sacrificial rite should, of its very nature, signify the internal worship of the heart. Now the sacrifice of the New Law signifies that supreme worship by which the principal Offerer himself, who is Christ, and, in union with Him and through Him, all the members of the Mystical Body pay God the honor and reverence that are due to Him.
94. We are very pleased to learn that this teaching, thanks to a more intense study of the liturgy on the part of many, especially in recent years, has been given full recognition. We must, however, deeply deplore certain exaggerations and over-statements which are not in agreement with the true teaching of the Church.
95. Some in fact disapprove altogether of those Masses which are offered privately and without any congregation, on the ground that they are a departure from the ancient way of offering the sacrifice; moreover, there are some who assert that priests cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time, because, by doing so, they separate the community of the faithful and imperil its unity; while some go so far as to hold that the people must confirm and ratify the sacrifice if it is to have its proper force and value.
96. They are mistaken in appealing in this matter to the social character of the eucharistic sacrifice, for as often as a priest repeats what the divine Redeemer did at the Last Supper, the sacrifice is really completed. Moreover, this sacrifice, necessarily and of its very nature, has always and everywhere the character of a public and social act, inasmuch as he who offers it acts in the name of Christ and of the faithful, whose Head is the divine Redeemer, and he offers it to God for the holy Catholic Church, and for the living and the dead.[88] This is undoubtedly so, whether the faithful are present - as we desire and commend them to be in great numbers and with devotion - or are not present, since it is in no wise required that the people ratify what the sacred minister has done.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 16:47:36 GMT
Mediator Dei:
100. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the people's piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a "dialogue" Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present, possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are present in great numbers and with devotion.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on Jan 18, 2010 16:53:25 GMT
Mediator Dei
191. As regards music, let the clear and guiding norms of the Apostolic See be scrupulously observed. Gregorian chant, which the Roman Church considers her own as handed down from antiquity and kept under her close tutelage, is proposed to the faithful as belonging to them also. In certain parts of the liturgy the Church definitely prescribes it;[171] it makes the celebration of the sacred mysteries not only more dignified and solemn but helps very much to increase the faith and devotion of the congregation. For this reason, Our predecessors of immortal memory, Pius X and Pius XI, decree - and We are happy to confirm with Our authority the norms laid down by them - that in seminaries and religious institutes, Gregorian chant be diligently and zealously promoted, and moreover that the old Scholae Cantorum be restored, at least in the principal churches. This has already been done with happy results in not a few places.[172]
193. It cannot be said that modem music and singing should be entirely excluded from Catholic worship. For, if they are not profane nor unbecoming to the sacredness of the place and function, and do not spring from a desire of achieving extraordinary and unusual effects, then our churches must admit them since they can contribute in no small way to the splendor of the sacred ceremonies, can lift the mind to higher things and foster true devotion of soul.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 5, 2010 22:24:35 GMT
Believe me, the Lassus are a performing choir, not a liturgical choir. Their members do not display much evidence of interest in the liturgy in St Kevin's - and it is a plain fact that they do Evensong in Christchurch with as much relish. I have seen them in St Kevin's and I suspect you are right about them. But they sing wonderfully and even if they are not themselves believers, they add a very beautiful aspect to the Mass and elevate those of us who are; and in their own way perhaps each of them is giving glory to God.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2010 12:01:28 GMT
I agree on that - if only those artists whose morals were above reproach were allowed, a lot of famous churches would be pretty bare.
|
|