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.

Dear ninenot,

"'indicate that though assistance, per se, isn't schismatic, it is generally gravely sinful,'

"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."

Ninenot, let me first clarify what I said. I can't impute moral culpability to anyone. I don't know who is personally, subjectively guilty of sin, even if I can see that they have committed an act which is the matter of serious sin. So, I can't say who is morally culpable of sin of those who assist at illicit schismatic SSPX Masses.

But I can say that such assistance is generally the matter of grave sin. In fact, a relevant document has already been quoted. Please refer to post 291 by patent, to the final letter from the commission Ecclesia Dei, the paragraph numbered as #2. I've excerpted it for you:

"2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called 'Tridentine' Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses."

A morally illicit act is an act which is objectively against the moral law, which is one way to define "sin".

Now, I'm sure that the schismatics will play their little mental evasions and say that they are impeded from attending a licit Mass, and thus, can attend a schismatic Mass. * sigh * Why bother disputing with them? They will deny the licitness of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, and thus vitiate the above command. They are so caught up in their own moral evasions, that they have entirely discounted the irrefutable postings of patent and others showing them their sin. Perhaps they are invincibly ignorant. One can hope.

But clearly, assisting at an illicit Mass is generally morally illicit. One effect of assisting at an illicit Mass on Sunday instead of a licit Mass is that one has, generally speaking, not fulfilled one's Sunday obligation. That is a matter of grave sin, not merely venial.

Again, I can't say who is or isn't personally, subjectively culpable of mortal sin, but assistance at an SSPX Mass is generally a matter of grave evil, and full culpability of the offense would constitute mortal sin.

sitetest

You know, if you had any brains you would know disobedience can be a virtue--as the Nurenberg Trials pointed out.

<> Perfect. Previously you had used the Black Mass as a basis of comparison to the Pauline Rite as a way to defend your schism. Now, we have Hitler and the Third Reich in the role of the Papacy and the Conciliar Church in this comparison so you can justify your schism against the Pope and the Church.

Earlier, you had noted I was intellectually challenged. I must be. I just don't understand a Catholic "reasoning" like this.<>

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.

<> Apparently so. But, dumb and obedient is far superior to intelligent and schismatic.<>

I use the word dumb advisedly--only somebody very stupid would accuse those they disagree with of being children of Satan.

<> I don't say you are a child of Satan because you disagree with ME. I say you are a child of Satan due to your schism and your rentless attack on the Pope, an Ecumenical Council, the normative Mass etc<>

Either your immense cluelessness or your exasperation is showing--perhaps both

<> IT must be my "cluelessness" as I am a zephyr of tranquillity while I enjoy seeing you and zviadist show your true colors :)<>

You just got finished laughing, stating that I was ridiculous for thinking Canon Law trumps the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and accusing me of heresy. When I pointed out there was no difference, that Canon Law WAS the authority of the Supreme Pontiff canonically expressed, you tried to wriggle-out again, saying "Those quotes have nothing to do with Canon Law". Which, of course, is bizarre. There were no quotes. I merely made a comment on your mindless comment.

<> LMAO This is hysterical. I don't believe that even you think that Canon Law is equivalent in authority to the Pope's authority. do you?

Furthermorethe sentence beginning "Those quotes..." was written to Zvdiast, not you. Talk about bizarre...

BTW, I know I am intellectually challenged and stupid and whatnot, but I can distinguish bewteen comments directed at me and comments directed at another :)<>

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

OK, let's go to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The ultimate source of canon law is God, Whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law), or by Revelation (positive Divine law). Both are contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Positive Divine law cannot contradict natural law; it rather confirms it and renders it more definite. The Church accepts and considers both as sovereign binding laws which it can interpret but can not modify; however, it does not discover natural law by philosophic speculation; it receives it, with positive Divine law, from God through His inspired Books, though this does not imply a confusion of the two kinds of Divine law. Of the Old Law the Church has preserved in addition to the Decalogue some precepts closely allied to natural law, e.g. certain matrimonial impediments; as to the other laws given by God to His chosen people, it considers them to have been ritual and declares them abrogated by Jesus Christ. Or rather, Jesus Christ, the Lawgiver of the spiritual society founded by Him (Con. Trid., Sess. VI, "De justif.", can. I), has replaced them by the fundamental laws which He gave His Church. This Christian Divine law, if we may so call it, is found in the Gospels, in the Apostolic writings, in the living Tradition, which transmits laws as well as dogmas. On this positive Divine law depend the essential principles of the Church's constitution, the primacy, the episcopacy, the essential elements of Divine worship and the Sacraments, the indissolubility of marriage, etc.
Again, to attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. The sources or authors of this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head, the pope, the successors of the Apostolic College and its divinely appointed head, Saint Peter. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of canon law.

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.

LOL. What the heck does “associated with schism and heresy” mean? I recall some time ago when discussing the excommunication of the Society Bishops, their schismatic status, and what effect that had on the laity that went to thier chapels. You had a certain fondness for stating that excommunication wasn’t a disease, you didn’t just catch it by going to Mass with an excommunicant. In view of that, please explain what the heck you mean by “associated” with schism. Did a Pope speak at a 4H luncheon attended by Protestant farmers?

Also, please provide the language from Vatican I you refer to. I’d be most interested.

Some were even excommunicated from the Church.

LOL. You can’t even get the Schismatic Traditionalist claims right. Your line is supposed to go, “one Pope was even excommunicated POSTHUMOROUSLY.” If you care to make additional claims, please support them, otherwise I’ll assume that all you have to rely on is the usual claim about Honorius.

Pope Honorius was condemned not because he taught heresy, but because of his permissive attitude toward the heresy of Monothelitism. When Pope Leo II confirmed the anathema borne by the 6th Ecumenical Council ( Constantinople II – 680-681 ) against Pope Honorius, he taught us that the crime consists in this: Honorius did not extinguish the fire of heresy at its beginning as was fitting for Apostolic Authority to do, but on the contrary he fomented it by his guilty negligence.

Unless of course your including the nutcase sedevacantist style “Popes” who have excommunicated JPII:

New Pope Elevated--Pope John Paul II Excommunicated: Lucian Pulvermacher, the Capucin Priest whom Catholic traditionalists recently elevated as the new "Pope Pius XIII," continues his campaign to "reform" the Catholic Church and return the apostate church to its original roots. At a recent conclave, the splinter group headed by Pius XIII deposed and excommunicated Pope John Paul II.

patent +AMDG

<> 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:

Not a single one mentioned Canon Law trumping the Pope. Your quotes:

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.

I’m going to presume you understand that the Canon referred to here is in the Mass, not the Canon Law. There is a difference. Thus, this quote doesn’t even apply to what CatholicGuy said. I’m also going to presume you are aware that many Popes have altered the Canon of the Mass, especially to add saints names.

[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.

This also has nothing to do with Canon Law, it is talking about revelation, or dogma. Canon Law is not dogma.

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)

Ditto. Also talking about revelation, not canon law. You really need to learn the difference between teachings on faith and morals, and jurisdictional rules. For example, the Pope can be infallible on the former, but cannot be on the latter, there are tremendous differences between changing revelation, and changing whether we can eat fish on Friday. Theologically speaking, changing Canon Law is more akin to the latter.

He who laughs last...

Appears to not know what he is talking about, as none of the three quotes you produced demonstrate that Canon Law trumps the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. From Vatican I:

8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

To the extent you claim that Canon law somehow constrains the actions of the Pope, and his judgment excommunicating Lefebvre, over his own personal power, you are a heretic.

Canon Law IS the law of the Supreme Pontiff. Did you think it existed on its own? It is the Pope speaking canonically. Not only this, but it trumps any of his pontifical letters which would lack the same sort of official status.

It does not, hwoever, trump him. He can trump it whenever he wishes, he can change it at will, and when he issued the decree Ecclesia Dei, he did just that to whatever extent the earlier written Canon law disagreed. I would note, that IMHO, there is no conflict, the canon law arguments for Lefebvre are hollow and false, but it really doesn’t matter. The Pope trumps the canon law whenever he wishes. Vatican I:

8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

To the extent you claim that Canon law somehow constrains the actions of the Pope, and his judgment excommunicating Lefebvre, over his own personal power, you are a heretic.

You left off a couple things from that article:

and so the sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart ("in scrinio pectoris"; Boniface VIII. c. i, "De Constit." in VI).

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.

Not so terribly accurate. From:

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95
Rome
29 September 1995
2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

3. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicaly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

5. Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

The Church didn't say the Hawaii SSPXers weren't schismatic, it said that the Bishop didn't have the proper grounds to excommunicate them, he didn't have the evidence.

patent

BTW, for great explainations on a lot of stuff old Missals are a marvelous resource. I started collecting them and over the weekend I found a 1934 imprint in an antique mall. Lots of stuff I didn't know in there, like how Mass got the name Mass.

Great point, Desdemona. Those old missals, many of which are small enough to fit into a shirt pocket, contained a wealth of information about the Catholic faith, and the Mass in particular. Just reading the introductory material in one of those missals will give you a much better education in the faith than any RCIA program.

I, too, have several missals that had belonged to older relatives either passed away or just not interested in the Latin Mass. Lately, however, I haven't been bringing them with me to Mass, preferring just to pray silently and offer up my intentions along with the priest without following his words in the missal. Since our parish does the readings in both Latin and English, I don't need the missal for a translation of the readings.

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.