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

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

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.

What chaplain committed what felony with what altar boy? If you're going to smear the Society, let's have some concrete facts. This is the first I've ever heard of this. If you are referring, however, to the infamous Father U, then you are a liar and a fraud. He was booted out of the SSPX pronto before any incident involving his proclivities had transpired and word was passed--properly--to the Bishop of Scranton who took him in nevertheless. It was the N.O. bishop who thought the warning by the SSPX was not worth considering and who now must deal with the subsequent mess the priest created.

Clearly, I.C.E.L. has written a new prayer.
Even if you are convinced of the validity of the Novus Ordo, when you attend Mass in the vernacular, you are participating in a travesty of even this new service. THE PRAYERS ARE NOT THE SAME.

Rather disingenuous of you. He commented on the ICEl translation, not the Novus Ordo itself. There is a difference and you are aware of it. Critiques of ICEL are not always valid critiques of the Latin Typical edition.

For the good of your soul, ATTEND THE LATIN MASS. You are gambling with all eternity otherwise.

LOL. Your gambling with all eternity if you attend anything but the Latin Mass? Do you take yourself seriously? I hope not, but suspect otherwise.

"Conservative" Catholics (aka "neo-Catholics")

You whine about being called schismatic, and ask us to stop this, but you seem dead set on name calling your self. If you are going to do it, you have no cause to complain when we do as well. Anything else is hypocrisy.

are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They are not defending the 2000-year tradition of the Church. Instead they are institutionalizing abuses and corruptions.

So much better to schism? By the way, I’m not institutionalizing anything. I am worshiping our Lord.

Let's please dispense with all the hackneyed accusations of "schismatic" and "heretic."

Disingenuous as well, given that the article raises these very issues. In this one he seems to hint that the SSPX is not schismatic, but a year earlier he said they were:

It includes the regretfully now-schismatic Society of St. Pius X, begun by the late Archbishop Lefebvre of France. It is one million strong, with 500 priests and about four bishops. The faithful counterforce to this is the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, with over 50 priests, many vocations, and rapid growth in many countries, despite hostility by many bishops who see it as divisive.

. It seems Fr. Somerville can’t really make up his mind on this issue. He cites Ratzinger for the opinion that they aren’t, but I’ve never seen this quote. Regardless, schism is very much an issue for these people, and those labels, when accurately applied to groups like the SSPX, are important.

patent +AMDG

To: ninenot

You are not getting confused--you are confused. Unless you're as young as you sound. In which case your stupidity is only a matter of immaturity. When you grow up let us know.

122 posted on 11/30/2002 11:50 PM CST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Loyalist

The timing is in God's hands. We have the faith. That's enough. It's for Rome to ponder what it's got. Whatever it is, it's not Catholicism.

123 posted on 11/30/2002 11:53 PM CST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

This is so absolutely classic that I had to highlight it again. A guy like ultima calling a guy like ninenot young and stupid. LOL And then to immediately follow it up with a claim that he has the faith, but Rome does not have it, whatever it has is not Catholicism. I’ve said it before ultima, you should just admit you are a sedevacantist, as no one else could claim that Rome is not Catholic. It necessarily follows.

Moreover, you demonstate just how catholic you are, ultima, when you hurl insults so freely as you do.

patent +AMDG

How long can the SSPX wait for it?

An eternity, it would appear.

At what point does the SSPX give up and decide to establish a more permanent parallel structure?

Well, they currently have their own seminaries, their own Bishops, their own convents, their own schools. It seems to me they already have established a permanent parallel structure, and do not plan on ever coming back. I don't know what else they need to establish to stay away forever.

patent +AMDG

BTW, you may denigrate my efforts but I think it is far better to have successfully negotited those two Masses very early on than to spend thirty years braying in the wilderness in service to the dead Lefebvre.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me -- I wasn't denigrating your efforts at all. You deserve a great deal of credit for getting authorization to hold 2 Latin Masses during the years 1969 - 1988. That's 2 more than just about anyone else in the United States, or elsewhere. I was commenting on the lack of availability of the Latin Mass, as demonstrated by your example, despite your heroic efforts. During those two decades there was the SSPX and renegade priests such as you describe. Everywhere else was a vast wasteland of felt-banner, pastel-colored 1970's Catholicism, a brand of Catholicism that killed the faith of nearly all its adherents. The number of Catholics that survived those years and limped into the 1990's was rather like the remnant of Napolean's army that limped back to Paris.

Even if you are convinced of the validity of the Novus Ordo, when you attend Mass in the vernacular, you are participating in a travesty of even this new service. THE PRAYERS ARE NOT THE SAME.

Rather disingenuous of you. He commented on the ICEl translation, not the Novus Ordo itself. There is a difference and you are aware of it. Critiques of ICEL are not always valid critiques of the Latin Typical edition.

I think if you re-read my sentence above, you will see that I WAS commenting on the ICEL translation. I said "If you ARE convinced of the validity of the Novus Ordo, you STILL must be concerned about the translation issue." When you attend the NO Mass in the vernacular, there are serious issues, some of which are highlighted by Fr. Somerville, that are in addition to the intrinsic issues related to the original Latin of the Novus Ordo.

Disingenuous as well, given that the article raises these very issues. In this one he seems to hint that the SSPX is not schismatic, but a year earlier he said they were:

As I said in my earlier reply to BlackElk, the point was whether you could deal with Fr. Somerville's criticisms without resorting to attacks upon him for so-called "heresy" and "schism." So far I see lots of personal assaults, but I don't see any reasoned defense of the Novus Ordo Mass against his testimony regarding the perfidy of the ICEL.

Campos would be just one more Brazilian hotbed of "liberation theology" if de Castro Mayer had not had the courage to resist innovation, even when it comes from the Pope.

Very true. Something many people on this forum seem to forget is how many people who are now considered to be saints spent a great deal of time out of favor with the Pope or Holy See of their time. Some were even imprisoned or denied faculties by Church authorities, but the truth that God had spoken to them triumphed in the end. We don't know how things are going to play out in final analysis, and what might be the eventual attitude of history and even the Church itself to people who are now considered, at best, "rebellious." The people at Campos and even the SSPX have to adhere to their informed consciences, with all good will and desire for peace, but with all prayerful firmness.

If I thought the Church were an organization ruled by fiat from above (that is, from the Pope alone), I could not in good conscience continue to be a Catholic. I would have to consider all Protestant and Orthodox criticisms of the Papacy to be correct. The Church is the Body of Christ; the Body is composed, in addition to those of us alive now, of 2000 years of tradition, of the lives of those who went before. No one, including the Pope, has the right to blot out all that has gone before - although, that said, I'm not sure that all of this innovation is a product of the Pope himself, particularly as he has gotten older and perhaps less able to control some of the eager beavers (I think BlackElk memorably called them "termites") at the lower levels.

Kissing THEIR holy book is not permitted.... But it is not okay for him to show deference to their faith by kissing the Koran and praying to Allah.

Are you accusing the Pope of idolatry?

My understanding of Islam's theology (such as it is) is that Islam is a heresy and Allah is our God the Father. Now Islam does NOT believe in the Trinity, which explains their blood-lust.

but I don't see any reasoned defense of the Novus Ordo Mass against his testimony regarding the perfidy of the ICEL.

Look, Max, few if any serious Catholics will defend ICEL, in any way, shape, or form. We've been handed over to ICEL for scourging, and we know it.

But ICEL's work is NOT the Mass. The NO Mass is licit and valid (given the usual circumstances) and that's all there is to it.

As to Somerville, he can thank God for the sacrament of Penance.

They have usurped no jurisdictions, but merely operate as any religious order would within the Church according to the mandate which had been provided by the Vatican itself. To suggest this is a parallel church is bizarre. They issue no new doctrines, have no new liturgical practices. Everything they think and do, in fact, is precisely as the Church had always thought and practiced. This, of course, is what bugs Rome. It wants the old Church and its version of Catholicism stamped out. That is to say, it seeks to erase the Church's memory of itself.

Thank you all for your answers re modernism.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, and, IMO, is vitally important is the concept rampant in modernism of "dumbing down". In the last 24 hours, especially after my long talk with Grandma, I've really thought about it and, if I'm reading this right, Vatican II as it came out in the end took a good deal of challenge out of the faith. The "New" ideas (which resemble a lot of the stuff I hear coming out of protestants) are fluff. Language and music have been taken to the lowest common denominator. There's no challenge to thinking about God and how He fits into our lives. Right? At least that's how it seems.

Someone mentioned that the ideas that bred modernism (separation of God from life on earth) orginated in the late 19th century. Without supporting documents, but some factual evidence...why not the late 18th when communism was cooked up on a college campus? It just took a while for the ideas to take root.

And, BTW, according to several relatives, before Vatican II and even after, when it came to abusive priests, the boys knew who they were. They did exist and the boys looked out for each other and would not allow anyone to be alone a room with a priest known for having a taste for boys. And they didn't tell because they didn't think their parents, or anyone else, would believe them. So, that problem is not a post-Vatican II or JPII one. It's been around a while.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.