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.

There are some seriously important things in your post and it's wonderful that you've found your niche, but remember that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Hey...I never claimed to be warm and fuzzy. Besides, the stakes are too high to water down the message.

The main problem most of us have, again, is the attacks on the pope. There have been bad popes in the past and there will be more in the future...He's a street priest and that effects his outlook and modus operendi.

I disagree with your assessment of this pope. He is not a street fighter. He is a serious intellectual, and was one long before he became pope. It is the subject matter of his study and his approach to the subject that is most concerning.

I don't think you would disagree that it is the responsibility of the faithful to defend the faith...even against a pope if he were to stray from recieved Tradition. It has been done in the past and it will be done again. Looking objectively at the actions of this pope, one cannot but wonder whether this resistance is not in order now. Surely you cannot defend the various novelties he has introduced and presided over, not to mention the refusal to clean out the sewer of the American Bishops.

<> Try, again. My point was formal excommunication. You already excommunicated yourself. You ahve told us the dreary details several times previously.<>

Wiggling-out of an untenable position again? Why not admit you have trouble thinking coherently?

<> I am happy to admit to any fault, real or imagined. My thinking will not be judged, my actions will be. It is the arrogant and prideful, thinking themselves smart" that will be in far more dire straits.

I am prepared to stand before the Judgement seat and claim I did what I could to be a faithful Catholic child that followed my Dad on Earth

You will have to explain to Jesus how you, as a child, acted disobedient and judged Dad a liar. Good Luck...Dad serves in the divinely-Constituted office Jesus established. When did Jesus die and make you Dad?<>

, I don't "pick on" the Pope, I merely state what he does--the facts speak for themselves. Either he is mistaken, or he is deliberately inventing a new religion.<>

<> Read what you just wrote. You ARE judging the Pope. That is what a heretic does. For you, the Supreme Pontiff is either in error or an apostate.

Frequently, you ask for proof of heresy. Patent has already cited one previous instance. Here is another. Bookmark these examples so we won't have to continually point out your heresies.

After you have bookmarked these examples, come back and tell us what happens to heretics at death<>

I disagree with your assessment of this pope. He is not a street fighter.

I said street PRIEST, not fighter. There's a difference.

He is a serious intellectual, and was one long before he became pope.

Well, of the 20th century anyway.

Surely you cannot defend the various novelties he has introduced and presided over, not to mention the refusal to clean out the sewer of the American Bishops.

I think he's dealing with the bishops as a chessmaster would approach an opponent. Cautiously. What his reasoning is, I'm not sure. What novelties are you talking about? Other than girls as altar servers. I was one of the few people i knew who objected to that one.

<> Read what you just wrote. You ARE judging the Pope. That is what a heretic does. For you, the Supreme Pontiff is either in error or an apostate.

Frequently, you ask for proof of heresy. Patent has already cited one previous instance. Here is another.

You have twisted yourself into an untenable position with the above nonsense. By your measure above, the dogmatic Council of Vatican I was heretical and schismatic. Or didn't you know that the dogmatic Council of Vatican I determined that some 40 popes out of some 250 were associated with schism and heresy. Some were even excommunicated from the Church.

Do you make the most un-Catholic claim that Vatican I, an infallible Council (unlike Vatican II), was indeed in error and heretical? Twist and shout...

I think he's dealing with the bishops as a chessmaster would approach an opponent.

I actually think he is gravely ill and possibly not acting with full mental faculties. Not his fault -- likely some of it is due to his medications. But one must wonder about the pronouncements of a pope who may not be completely aware of what he is doing. Paul VI was said to be seriously manic-depressive by many close to him, perhaps medicated for this disorder. One must also wonder about him.

You have got to read this one. LOL No comment needed

<> Read what you just wrote. You ARE judging the Pope. That is what a heretic does. For you, the Supreme Pontiff is either in error or an apostate.

Frequently, you ask for proof of heresy. Patent has already cited one previous instance. Here is another.<>

Paul VI was said to be seriously manic-depressive by many close to him, perhaps medicated for this disorder. One must also wonder about him.

Hmmm...that's interesting. Paul VI, IMO, wasn't a strong enough person to have that seat. And I was a kid when he died.

As for this pope and his medication - possibly, but I think the person we see in public is quite different than the man behind the scenes.

Well, you ask a good question: how will anyone KNOW what they don't KNOW?

I think it's slightly more complicated that this. You're right, ignorance isn't exactly an unprecedented problem. But it isn't simple ignorance that worries me.

My worry is people clinging to heresy and error, believing that these are the teachings of the Church. It's not a problem of incomplete religious instruction so much as receiving a parallel and conflicting religious instruction. When Catholics so educated encounter true Church teachings, they won't be so easily instructed as the ignorant. They'll fight against truth which they have been taught is "error."

I think about examples like local priest in Michigan instructing his parishioners that the pro-choice position was the truly Catholic one. Or people in my previous parish being instructed that confession is no longer a sacrament. Imagine them encountering a Church leader teaching against the pro-choice position, or in favor of the necessity of confession. They might consider him a heretic against the Catholic Church.

Give a diocese a free hand and a series of heterodox, Weakland-like bishops, and I have to wonder how much Catholicism will remain there. And how to get it back without almost literally starting over.

<> LMAO You really do think that Canon Law trumps the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. LAMO. THat is ANOTHER heresy.

Foiled again: some folks a bit more distinguished than you disagree:

VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878)

"I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"
In response to requests that he add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass.

And while we're at it, let's have a look at the dogmatic Council of Vatican I:

"Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, "De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio")

[For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

And how about the great pope of the 20th century:

POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958)

"The sacred pastors are not the inventors and composers of the Gospel, but merely the authorized guardians and preachers divinely established. Wherefore, we ourselves, and all bishops with us, can and must repat the words of Jesus Christ: "My teaching is not my own, but his who sent me" (John 7:16)....

"Therefore, we are not teachers of a doctrine born of the human mind, but we are in conscience bound to embrace and follow the doctrine which Christ Our Lord taught and which He solemnly commanded His Apostles and their successors to teach (Matthew 28:19-20)." (Encyclical Letter "Ad Sinarum Gentem," October 7, 1954)

He who laughs last...

Glad to see you acting a bit more humble lately. It becomes you. You have much to be humble about.

<> O Lord, it's hard to be humble

when you're perfect in every way.

I can't wait to look in the mirror

I get better looking each day.

To know me is to love me.

I must be a heck of a man.

O Lord it's hard to be humble

But I 'm doing the best that I can

(Old Mac Davis song).

BTW, in my neighborhood, it wasn't considered an act of humility to disobey your Father. But, that was a LONG time ago when "Honor your Mother and Father" was taken seriously and before the Liberals and the traditionalists made disobedience a virtue.

What is funny is the traditionalists have aped the liberals in identifying normalcy as dysfucntional so these twins could follow their own wills - just like Satan, their real Father<>

You know, if you had any brains you would know disobedience can be a virtue--as the Nurenberg Trials pointed out. We have a DUTY to disobey an order to sin or to carry out a papal command which would help wreck the Church. You apparently are too dumb to make these distinctions. I use the word dumb advisedly--only somebody very stupid would accuse those they disagree with of being children of Satan. Either your immense cluelessness or your exasperation is showing--perhaps both.

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.