An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[Loyalist]

An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing my Service on I.C.E.L.
Father Stephen Somerville, STL.

Dear Fellow Catholics in the Roman Rite,

1 – I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).

2 – I am a priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada, ordained in 1956. Fascinated by the Liturgy from early youth, I was singled out in 1964 to represent Canada on the newly constituted I.C.E.L. as a member of the Advisory Board. At 33 its youngest member, and awkwardly aware of my shortcomings in liturgiology and related disciplines, I soon felt perplexity before the bold mistranslations confidently proposed and pressed by the everstrengthening radical/progressive element in our group. I felt but could not articulate the wrongness of so many of our committee’s renderings.

3 – Let me illustrate briefly with a few examples. To the frequent greeting by the priest, The Lord be with you, the people traditionally answered, and with your (Thy) spirit: in Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo. But I.C.E.L. rewrote the answer: And also with you. This, besides having an overall trite sound, has added a redundant word, also. Worse, it has suppressed the word spirit which reminds us that we human beings have a spiritual soul. Furthermore, it has stopped the echo of four (inspired) uses of with your spirit in St. Paul’s letters.

4 – In the I confess of the penitential rite, I.C.E.L. eliminated the threefold through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, and substituted one feeble through my own fault. This is another nail in the coffin of the sense of sin.

5 – Before Communion, we pray Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst (you should) enter under my roof. I.C.E.L. changed this to ... not worthy to receive you. We loose the roof metaphor, clear echo of the Gospel (Matth. 8:8), and a vivid, concrete image for a child.

6 – I.C.E.L.’s changes amounted to true devastation especially in the oration prayers of the Mass. The Collect or Opening Prayer for Ordinary Sunday 21 will exemplify the damage. The Latin prayer, strictly translated, runs thus: O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to your peoples (grace) to love that which you command and to desire that which you promise, so that, amidst worldly variety, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are found.

7 – Here is the I.C.E.L. version, in use since 1973: Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise, make us one in mind and heart.

8 – Now a few comments: To call God Father is not customary in the Liturgy, except Our Father in the Lord’s prayer. Help us to seek implies that we could do this alone (Pelagian heresy) but would like some aid from God. Jesus teaches, without Me you can do nothing. The Latin prays grant (to us), not just help us. I.C.E.L.’s values suggests that secular buzzword, “values” that are currently popular, or politically correct, or changing from person to person, place to place. Lasting joy in this changing world, is impossible. In our desire presumes we already have the desire, but the Latin humbly prays for this. What you promise omits “what you (God) command”, thus weakening our sense of duty. Make us one in mind (and heart) is a new sentence, and appears as the main petition, yet not in coherence with what went before. The Latin rather teaches that uniting our minds is a constant work of God, to be achieved by our pondering his commandments and promises. Clearly, I.C.E.L. has written a new prayer. Does all this criticism matter? Profoundly! The Liturgy is our law of praying (lex orandi), and it forms our law of believing (lex credendi). If I.C.E.L. has changed our liturgy, it will change our faith. We see signs of this change and loss of faith all around us.

9 – The foregoing instances of weakening the Latin Catholic Liturgy prayers must suffice. There are certainly THOUSANDS OF MISTRANSLATIONS in the accumulated work of I.C.E.L. As the work progressed I became a more and more articulate critic. My term of office on the Advisory Board ended voluntarily about 1973, and I was named Member Emeritus and Consultant. As of this writing I renounce any lingering reality of this status.

10 – The I.C.E.L. labours were far from being all negative. I remember with appreciation the rich brotherly sharing, the growing fund of church knowledge, the Catholic presence in Rome and London and elswhere, the assisting at a day-session of Vatican II Council, the encounters with distinguished Christian personalities, and more besides. I gratefully acknowledge two fellow members of I.C.E.L. who saw then, so much more clearly than I, the right translating way to follow: the late Professor Herbert Finberg, and Fr. James Quinn S.J. of Edinburgh. Not for these positive features and persons do I renounce my I.C.E.L. past, but for the corrosion of Catholic Faith and of reverence to which I.C.E.L.’s work has contributed. And for this corrosion, however slight my personal part in it, I humbly and sincerely apologize to God and to Holy Church.

11 – Having just mentioned in passing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), I now come to identify my other reason for renouncing my translating work on I.C.E.L. It is an even more serious and delicate matter. In the past year (from mid 2001), I have come to know with respect and admiration many traditional Catholics. These, being persons who have decided to return to pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass and Liturgy, and being distinct from “conservative” Catholics (those trying to retouch and improve the Novus Ordo Mass and Sacraments of post-Vatican II), these Traditionals, I say, have taught me a grave lesson. They brought to me a large number of published books and essays. These demonstrated cumulatively, in both scholarly and popular fashion, that the Second Vatican Council was early commandeered and manipulated and infected by modernist, liberalist, and protestantizing persons and ideas. These writings show further that the new liturgy produced by the Vatican “Concilium” group, under the late Archbishop A. Bugnini, was similarly infected. Especially the New Mass is problematic. It waters down the doctrine that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, not just a memorial. It weakens the truth of the Real Presence of Christ’s victim Body and Blood by demoting the Tabernacle to a corner, by reduced signs of reverence around the Consecration, by giving Communion in the hand, often of women, by cheapering the sacred vessels, by having used six Protestant experts (who disbelieve the Real Presence) in the preparation of the new rite, by encouraging the use of sacro-pop music with guitars, instead of Gregorian chant, and by still further novelties.

12 – Such a litany of defects suggests that many modern Masses are sacrilegious, and some could well be invalid. They certainly are less Catholic, and less apt to sustain Catholic Faith.

13 – Who are the authors of these published critiques of the Conciliar Church? Of the many names, let a few be noted as articulate, sober evaluators of the Council: Atila Sinka Guimaeres (In the Murky Waters of Vatican II), Romano Amerio (Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century), Michael Davies (various books and booklets, TAN Books), and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one the Council Fathers, who worked on the preparatory schemas for discussions, and has written many readable essays on Council and Mass (cf Angelus Press).

14 – Among traditional Catholics, the late Archbishop Lefebvre stands out because he founded the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), a strong society of priests (including six seminaries to date) for the celebration of the traditional Catholic liturgy. Many Catholics who are aware of this may share the opinion that he was excommunicated and that his followers are in schism. There are however solid authorities (including Cardinal Ratzinger, the top theologian in the Vatican) who hold that this is not so. SSPX declares itself fully Roman Catholic, recognizing Pope John Paul II while respectfully maintaining certain serious reservations.

15 – I thank the kindly reader for persevering with me thus far. Let it be clear that it is FOR THE FAITH that I am renouncing my association with I.C.E.L. and the changes in the Liturgy. It is FOR THE FAITH that one must recover Catholic liturgical tradition. It is not a matter of mere nostalgia or recoiling before bad taste.

16 – Dear non-traditional Catholic Reader, do not lightly put aside this letter. It is addressed to you, who must know that only the true Faith can save you, that eternal salvation depends on holy and grace-filled sacraments as preserved under Christ by His faithful Church. Pursue these grave questions with prayer and by serious reading, especially in the publications of the Society of St Pius X.

17 – Peace be with you. May Jesus and Mary grant to us all a Blessed Return and a Faithful Perseverance in our true Catholic home.

Rev Father Stephen F. Somerville, STL.

[drstevej]

I do not despise you at all. And I appreciate the kind words. I appreciate the opportunity to be a "nice heretic" and make some comments, ask some questions and exchange ideas. I understand the intensity of the threads given the depth of conviction on both sides.

[patent]

Looks just as bad to me.

Oh it looks plenty bad to me as well, but that wasn’t my point, which seems to have flown past most traditionalists here. I think those it was intended for understood it, so I’ll leave it there.

(Sorry it's so big. Is there some way to control the size, since you're just linking to a picture posted elsewhere?)

Yes.

< img src=http://www.visi.com/~patent/Children.jpg height=77 width=52 > gives you:

Sincerely,

Old what’s-his-name who is purportedly getting all bent out of shape or something like that.

[Zviadist]

If you are "received into full communion", then prior to your reception, you were not in "full communion". This is a matter of understanding English.

There is still the matter of explicitly lifting the censure of those who were "formally schismatic". The Vatican did not do so. You cannot deny reality.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I haven't seen pictures of a hula Mass, but here is a photo of the "clown Mass."

LOL...do you guys REALLY do this, and if yes, what for?

BigMack

[ultima ratio]

Simple. The Pope was wrong. He is often wrong. Here he contradicts his own canon law. The document, by the way, is not infallible, nor has the Pope claimed it was.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"It is immaterial what Rome gives."

Ah, yes. Change the subject. Sure sign you've been beaten.

"The irony here is that it is Rome who is actually seeking legitimacy."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Which is why the CHURCH gets to pick CAMPOS' bishops, and not the other way around. Right??

ROTFLMAO. GHAHAILSH (Gonna have a heart attack I'm laughing so hard).

You keep telling that to yourself, ultima.

I'll continue to remember you when I say the Rosary.


sitetest

[Desdemona]

THen why was what's-his-name getting all bent out of shape by the previous poster's reference to them?

I don't know. But the constant, we're right and you're wrong, etc., is not only getting old but gets in the way of real discussion.

[Zviadist]

They say a picture speaks a thousand words....

[Catholicguy]

<> Is it possible this was a Mass intended for the spiritual benefit of those empolyed as clowns? I mean, those dressed as clowns seem rather subdued and self-contained. Mebbe they were just depressed because the prist wouldn't allow their little car into the Church<>

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Is the hula Mass, and clown Mass part of what you have been talking about?

BigMack

[patent]

I haven't seen pictures of a hula Mass, but here is a photo of the "clown Mass."

LOL...do you guys REALLY do this, and if yes, what for?

There are liberal Catholics who try to make the Mass "relevant" for particular groups. They do children’s masses, clown masses, etc. It really misses the point of the Mass, and I doubt any of us here actually do this. I just want the Mass, without any silly modifiers on it.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

You are at least an honest schismatic. There can be no Campos for you.

So, I guess Campos gave something significant in return. Or at least in your own mind, and so you are honest enough to admit it.

God's blessings to you. May He enlighten the darkened corners of your mind and heart.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Interesting how you Prostolics think. You despise traditionalists who practice the true faith but love witchdoctors and voodoo priests and welcome them into the big tent. Unity in diversity and all that...

[Catholicguy]

Never. The New "Mass" is illegitimate I have a suggestion, in all seriousness. We have extended this thread far beyond what we normally do. Because your last name begins with "Z" I propose we stop this thread and let you have the last word in post #666. I can' think of a more apporpriate way to end the thead given your thoughts <>

[Catholicguy]

<> Then, post more pictures and less of your own words so we can save space<>

[ultima ratio]

A part--not a big part. The problem is with the new Mass, period. It is Protestant, not Catholic.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

<> Then, post more pictures and less of your own words so we can save space<>

Ok, Catholicguy staring in....

BigMack

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"There is still the matter of explicitly lifting the censure of those who were 'formally schismatic'. The Vatican did not do so. You cannot deny reality."

It is you who deny reality. Even your beloved SSPX reports, via Mr. Fellay:

"The censures 'possibly incurred' (sic) will be lifted."

Other reports record that the excommunication was lifted.

The Campos priests, themselves, in their August 2001 letter to the Holy Father, explicitly admit that they have been "juridically excluded" from the Catholic Church, and they apologize for any actions on their part which led to that (you can look up the letter for yourself - it can be readily googled - you should read it yourself, the humility of these priests in admitting all error obviously moved our Holy Father to deal with them in leniency and mercy).

But your post is still quite funny. Having been shown that the Campos folks were outside of the Church, and that your own citation of being "received into full communion" proved that you were wrong to assert that they were outside the Church, now you drop that battle, having been defeated, and take up the next. Without so much as a la-de-da. LOL.

Your chutzpah is admirable.


sitetest

[Catholicguy]

By their fruit you will know them.

<> One of tne fruits of Vatican I was the Old Catholics. One of the fruits of Vatican II is the Neo-Old Catholics. "The more things change...."

<>" Filled with ideas of ecclesiastical Liberalism and rejecting the Christian spirit of submission to the teachings of the Church, nearly 1400 Germans issued, in September, 1870, a declaration in which they repudiated the dogma of Infallibility "as an innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church"

You and your ilk are no different, in principle, than the Old Catholics<>