Posted on 11/29/2002 5:00:21 PM PST by 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.
What do you mean WILL be excommunicated?
<> Try again, Ace<>
I am not an "SSPXer". I am a traditional Catholic. It just happens that the SSPX provides the Mass and Sacraments in a consistently traditional way while still recognizing that the Seat of St. Peter is occupied. Therefore I assist at Mass in an SSPX chapel where I live.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the Lord God Almighty.
Prove that it is gravely sinful to assist at a Traditional Mass held in an SSPX chapel. Not even Rome contends this. But I guess you know better than they do, oh holy one...
I'll check out the book Colleen. Thanks for the recommendation. But I have to tell you I'm less optimistic.
It's nice hearing from people in good orthodox parishes. But my own experience has been worse. I have belonged to 6 different parishes in my adult life. Each one has been more "progressive" than the next. Though more conservative in general outlook than the previous generation, I'm not seeing much orthodoxy among younger Catholics. I'm seeing simple abandonment of the Faith. I'm not sure this is even intentional on their part. They may be rejecting out of ignorance rather than intent.
Here's a related anecdote: When I sponsored by wife through RCIA classes, I had to sit through so much heterodox nonsense I couldn't believe it. In fact, if I heard someone else telling about all the things being taught in the classes I sat through I'd think I was hearing quite a bit of exagerration. Statements about how the Catholic Church wasn't too different than Protestant churches, a priest instructing the class that confession was no longer required by the Church, a student being reprimanded for suggesting the class learn to pray the rosary. On every issue where someone asked for clarification about the Catholic Church versus a Protestant position, the class instructor (either the religious education instructor or the assisting priest) refused to clearly state a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. I always spent one or two hours after the class blowing off steam and correcting all the errors taught to my wife with the help of a Catechism (a book never even mentioned in the RCIA classes). My wife's constant criticism was that she had already been a Protestant, and if that's all the Catholic Church was offering, why should she bother to convert?
Incidentally, the woman in charge of the RCIA program was also in charge of Religious education of all the children in the parish - both the school and CCD classes. This occurred at one of the largest parishes in my archdiocese. We selected it after moving there because it was actually more orthodox then several others we visited.
This experience made me think we may have a larger problem than we realize. Regardless of orthodox intentions in the next generation, how will true orthodoxy return to a Church when Catholic children and converts are never taught about it in the first place? How many young Catholics are even truly Catholic, in the sense that they accept the teachings of the Church as explained in the Catechism - a book many of them have never even seen? How many reject the Faith without even realizing it, encouraged in their dissension by heterodox religious educators?
There may be entire dioceses, perhaps even entire countries, who are not being instructed in the Catholic faith. A resurgence of orthodoxy may not be enough to correct the problem. Someday soon, in places currently thought to be within the Church, we may literally need missionaries to re-establish the Faith.
It may be helpful if you were to once again tell us the peculiar circumstances that led to the reversal of the excommunication of the Hawaii laypeople.
Why don't we ask Cardinal Ratzinger himself:
Background on the case: [Mrs. Morley and five other Traditional Catholics in the Diocese of Honolulu, known as "The Honolulu Six," were "excommunicated" by the Bishop of Honolulu on the grounds that they:
* established a traditional chapel in the diocese
* impugned the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the New Mass for four years on a religious radio program
* invited independent and SSPX priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at the chapel
* invited an SSPX bishop to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel
* disobeyed the bishop
Even in the face of all these acts on the part of The Honolulu Six, the Vatican decreed that the six did not commit the crime of "schism" and declared that the bishop's action in "excommunicating" them was null and void. Subsequently, the bishop was removed from office by the Vatican on a morals charge.
In clear violation of the Vatican's decree, the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, later threatened with "excommunication" any Catholics in his diocese attending the Traditional Latin Mass at independent and SSPX chapels. Although the threat was given much publicity, the bishop in the end backed down when his bluff was called and declined to take any such illegal action.]
DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITHSo here we have even Cardinal Ratzinger affirming that assisting at a Mass conducted in an SSPX chapel is NOT a schismatic act. What will all those here who only know how to scream "schism" say to the Cardinal? That he is schismatic as well?
(THE "HONOLULU" DECISION)
On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued on May 1, 1991.
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree declared Mrs. Morely excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in canon 1364.1 of the Code of Canon Law [1983].
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.
Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded.
This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
Alberto Bovone, Secretary
Vatican City, June 4, 1993
Very, very true. My sympathies on your RCIA experience. I have a convert friend who started with the RCIA program in a NYC parish and had to flee in horror after they had to conclude their sessions - under the "guidance" of a 50-ish nun - by staring into a candle flame.
Needless to say, the things that Sister taught in the few classes my friend attended bore no relationship to Catholicism. BTW, attendance dropped on a weekly basis. Other members of the class also knew much more about the Church than Sister Snowflake, and they couldn't tolerate the hogwash they were getting.
My friend finally found a priest who instructed her and received her privately (how he got away with it, I don't know), so she's in now! Of course, what she's faced with as an actual Catholic is just as depressing, alas...
Amazing! Thank you for sharing this with us here. No wonder Catholics have just stopped going to Mass since this gang of revolutionaries took over. The only thing they have left is fear: to terrify the faithful that if they dare to seek out traditional Catholicism they will be excommunicated and sent to hell for eternity. This is all they have left: fear. And you see it here on this thread over and over. Try to terrify the bewildered masses and keep them in these protestantized churches by force. It is immoral and against the timeless Catholic faith. I do not doubt that the authors of this deception will pay.
How many young Catholics are even truly Catholic, in the sense that they accept the teachings of the Church as explained in the Catechism - a book many of them have never even seen?
As much as people here will attack and belittle the idea, I can say without hesitation that these truly Catholic principles are continually coming more and more alive in the chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X and in independent Roman Catholic chapels across this country and across the world. You want to see where the non-watered down Catholic faith is thriving and spreading? You want to see where children at the earliest age know exponentially more about the Faith than folks like me, who found the traditional Mass after years in the wilderness? These kids are amazing. They love God, they love their Catholic Faith, and they live their Catholic faith. It is the most heartening thing. This is the remnant that will restore the Faith when these terrible times have passed. Even just thinking about it makes me very optimistic...
Based on the letter to the Australian (?) posted above from the Vatican congregation, I think your conclusion is unwarranted.
The Vatican WARNS that regular attendance at schismatic Masses is 'harmful to your health,' but did not seem to impose penalty of sin.
Says who? You? Rome and the pope disagree. You are challenging the pope on this?
Why do you lie? Priests of the SSPX are not excommunicated. NOT EXCOMMUNICATED. Get it?
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.