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.

You know what I find amazing? This post was about a major figure in the establishment of the New Mass publicly renouncing what was essentially his life's work. It is a truly amazing and phenomenal event. So what do the usual suspects proceed to do on this thread? Scream "heretic" and "schismatic" at traditionalists even as one of their heros renounces all that he has done. Talk about terrified obfuscation of the issue. Aside from the passing "we all knew ICEL was bad" from a few of the neos, not a word about what this thread is actually about. I would say it is about panic time for them. I can see no other explanation for their deliberate refusal to deal with the matter at hand, the topic of this article.

You certainly can spout "post hoc, propter hoc" argumentation. Unfortunately, logic demands better.

You won't catch me defending Bugnini, or the prudential judgment errors of Paul VI (who finally DID figure out that B. was a snake--in the Genesis sense.) You won't catch me defending ICEL, that gang of bedwetting intellectualoid subversives and fellow-travelers.

But you will NEVER catch me disputing the authority of the Pope (and ONLY the Pope) to regulate the Liturgy.

That's an authority you just can't submit to.

You know what I find amazing? This post was about a major figure in the establishment of the New Mass publicly renouncing what was essentially his life's work. It is a truly amazing and phenomenal event.

You are correct. But, at the same time, this is not an event which should be used to bash the current pope. It was so many posts ago, I don't remember how it got started.

Bottom line is that one of the primary architects of the NO is denouncing it and all that precipitated from it. And this won't get much play outside conservative circles. In fact, it's going to put a whole lot of people's underwear in a bundle, starting with a person in my house (not me).

Actually, break out the brie, Vermont cheddar, apples and martinis (household football snacks). This is going to be entertaining.

Or do you understand the Catholic doctrine of infallibility at all?

Apparently you have chosen to confuse Papal authority over the Liturgy (cf. Canon Law) with infallibility.

And you then state that I don't understand infallibility?

You don't understand the Church--but that's not a surprise.

1. Unity with the Pontiff does not mean one must agree with everything he teaches or practices, especially when these run directly counter to the teachings and practices of all other popes and councils.

2. The real question is whether this Pope is in unity with Tradition--which he often opposes, but which he has taken a solemn oath to defend. Obedience is the servant of faith, faith is not the servant of obedience.

3. I have never rejected the papacy or the Pope. That you say this does not therefore make it true. It would be convenient to you if it were true, since it would put me clearly beyond the pale of Catholicism, but it is not true, and I am very much a practicing Catholic--one who speaks out and does not shy away from saying the emperor--our Pope--has no clothes. I fully admit I reject some idolatrous actions of this Pope; I reject his persecution of traditionalists; I reject his corresponding support of apostate prelates; I reject his lack of initiative in the matter of instituting necessary reforms in the seminaries. These are CRITICISMS. I will even concede they may be impolitic and discourteous and insufferably impudent. BUT I DO NOT REJECT THE POPE. Got it? I am not and never have been a sedevacantist or a Protestant. So your continuing to say this is another smear on your part. Try dealing with me as a Catholic. Then I might find what you have to say more convincing. As it is, you sound ludicrous since your only argument is that I am supposed to be doing what I know I am not doing.

We already sent you guys Scott Hahn

And thanks, BTW.

But if you keep hanging around these threads, sooner or later, you'll want to post as an 'active participant.'

The path's been cleared by Hahn. Take a short walk.

It's amazing the people who refuse to grow beyond what Oregon Catholic Press publishes.

An excellent article on their crap appears this month in your hometown's most excellent publication, the Adoremus Bulletin. Call Jim Hitchcock at StLouisU. for a copy.

This AM we sang the Kyrie and Agnus Dei from Mass IX, the Alma Redemptoris Mater, an Anglicized version of Rorate Coeli (original melody,) and a 16th Century English motet on an Advent theme.

Just a regular parish choir, NO Mass, with Asperges beforehand.

Weren't you considering a move to Milwaukee??

But, at the same time, this is not an event which should be used to bash the current pope. It was so many posts ago,

Nor should the admitted bitter fruits of Somerville's work be used to praise the current pope as if he were a god, which has been going on with the neo-Caths here for ages and again on this thread.

As was relayed recently in an SSPX newsletter:

"For instance, when Italian journalist Vittorio Messori interviewed recently Pope John Paul II for one of his books, it appears that he tried repeatedly to get the Pope to admit that not all the fruits of the Council were good, but the Pope would not once admit it. As an SSPX colleague stationed in Italy says, this Pope has 'a mystic belief' in the Second Vatican Council.'"

This pope refuses to admit that any of the fruits of Vatican II were bitter, while all around him the Church is falling apart. And still people like you scream that this pope is not to be criticized. That is what I mean when I talk about idolatry. It is not Catholic.

I suppose three large screens and powerpoint wouldn't be your cup of tea?

THere's a VERY LARGE non-denominational Christian church about 3 miles from my house. I have NEVER seen so much electronic equipment in my life as they have for their musical presentations. Honestly, there are TV stations with less investment.

(Here's my nasty side) They need it to make up for the lack of the Real Presence. All He needs is one red candle.

I have never rejected the papacy or the Pope. That you say this does not therefore make it true. It would be convenient to you if it were true, since it would put me clearly beyond the pale of Catholicism, but it is not true, and I am very much a practicing Catholic--one who speaks out and does not shy away from saying the emperor--our Pope--has no clothes. I fully admit I reject some idolatrous actions of this Pope; I reject his persecution of traditionalists; I reject his corresponding support of apostate prelates; I reject his lack of initiative in the matter of instituting necessary reforms in the seminaries. These are CRITICISMS. I will even concede they may be impolitic and discourteous and insufferably impudent. BUT I DO NOT REJECT THE POPE. Got it? I am not and never have been a sedevacantist or a Protestant. So your continuing to say this is another smear on your part. Try dealing with me as a Catholic. Then I might find what you have to say more convincing.

Well said. This all goes for me and then some! (Of course it is easier for them to scream "schismatic!!!" and be done with it.)

Call Jim Hitchcock at StLouisU. for a copy.

Dr. Hitchcock? Hey did you know his daughter, a classmate of mine, was named house counsel to the Chairman of the SEC. I think. Some high level goverment job.

This AM we sang the Kyrie and Agnus Dei from Mass IX, the Alma Redemptoris Mater, an Anglicized version of Rorate Coeli (original melody,) and a 16th Century English motet on an Advent theme.

Why can't we have great music directors here? They're all addicted to Marty Haugen, David Haas and the Jesuits (blech) and program out of the "Liturgy Today" magazine. I just hate it. It's a remnant of the great experimental stuff in liturgy that appearantly started at Lindell and Grand. What a shame. The big problem seems to be that people just aren't interested in better stuff.

Weren't you considering a move to Milwaukee??

As cold as I was out in the fields looking for a Christmas tree yesterday, no. We have to be the only people who go out to cut a tree in a U-haul. (Well, we WERE moving furniture, too. It was just convenient.)

Haven't been to the church near you. However, as we celebrated the Table of the Lord this morning I rejoiced at His Presence as I remembered the high price He paid to redeem me. His words, "It is finished" resonnated in my heart and mind as I partook of the bread and the cup.

Ninenot, I was Home in His presence. I didn't see a red candle, but as I held the unleavened bread I contemplated His broken body for me. As I drank from the cup I was overwhelmed that He would shed His blood that I might partake in the New Covenant.

BTW, the sermon was given by a young man who grew up in our church and served as youth pastor for three years prior to entering seminary a year an a half ago. He did a great job of unfolding the passage. God's grace in this young man's life is so obvious. We will likely, Lord willing, send 4 or 5 more qualified men to seminary in the next three or four years. They are already praying and planning!

This pope refuses to admit that any of the fruits of Vatican II were bitter, while all around him the Church is falling apart. And still people like you scream that this pope is not to be criticized.

I was brought up not to question or criticize the pope. But then I also grew up in the midst of the 70's liturgical experimentation and "experiences."

What his reasoning is, I don't know. I do think, though, that it's somewhat healthier to experience the modernism and realize it's wrong on one's own. We're definitely in the middle of that. The pope must have his reasons, but I would be willing to bet that this is an outgrowth of his time as a street priest. I know a few others who would never consider returning to pre-Vatican II. I doesn't suit their style.

There are people who will never entertain the idea that Vatican II was wrong in any way shape or form. And they're the ones who will scream bloody murder if the church reverts all at once. Better to do it incrementally.

By rejecting the Pope's authority to promulgate the NO you reject the Pope. You cannot claim that rejection is equivalent to 'criticism.' 'Criticism' is what BlackElk, Salvation, AquinasFan, and many others, such as Desdemona and yours truly do--and we do it without implying that the Pope is malevolent or intellectually deficient.

Prudential decisions are another thing. They are not necessarily vested with authority, as was the decision to implement the NO.

Oh, but the Pope may be a modernist and yet not a formal heretic. It all depends on the state of his will and intellect--which I don't pretend to judge. But there can be no doubt his policies are modernist. In general his exaggerated ecumenism is modernist. Assisi would be one example. His slowness to reform the liturgy and to defend the doctrine of the Real Presence which has been seriously harmed by the Novus Ordo, would be another.

Ah, Des, in Milwaukee we live INSIDE houses, not OUTSIDE of them. It's customary to have a furnace and heat the house during winter (and parts of summer, too.)

PAID full-time opera company, PAID positions in the Symphony Chorus (by audition,) PAID opera company chorus only 90 miles away.

And a Parish with REAL MUSIC.

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.