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

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[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.

[patent]

When you enter the discussion with a poor understanding of how the legal process works, then you fail to understand what the court actually held. This is especially true when you snip out little pieces, little sound bites, and claim they mean something in your favor, when in fact they hardly do.

You are found guilty or innocent based on the facts before the Court. Only a naive 12 year old thinks the courts truly find you guilty or innocent. They admit certain facts, exclude others, and make a judgment based on those they have. Thus, as was said:

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.

Their judgment was that the actions they had proof of were not sufficient for the specific canon law element she was charged under. It was not that she was innocent in fact. As said elsewhere:

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.

What that phrase, “did not have ground” means is that he didn’t have the proof.

I am not surprised this doesn’t make sense to you, but that is how it is.

Second, you fail to understand what acts the Bishop of Honolulu excommunicated them for. You claim it was about attending an SSPX Mass, but this is wrong on two counts. It was not a Mass, and even if it had been a Mass, it was not in an SSPX chapel to begin with. What he actually said, in his warning to them, was far different. The Bishop warned them and then excommunicated them for a couple things:

(1) Incorporating a chapel
(2) Hosting a radio show critical of the Novus Ordo, etc.
(3) Having Williamson do a confirmation in the Chapel (I note that the Bishop of Honolulu is the only person I have ever seen who actually seemed to think that excommunication is a contagious disease, as he said “but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication”)

I mean, when this guy thinks excommunication is contagious, no wonder he was reversed. Mass was not mentioned. The letter:

Moving on, in a letter dated June 28, 1993, the Apostolic Pro-Nunico, Archbishop Cacciavillan, declared:

"From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree [patent’s note: Mass is not one of the facts referred to] are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity."

Furthermore, the man who represented the Hawaii six, Chuck Wilson, affirms that the case does not support the SSPX’s position about attendance at its chapels because the chapel mentioned above, where the Masses were held, was not administered by the Society and the persons involved did not belong to the SSPX. What was really at issue in this case was that the six individuals were openly calling attention to the Bishop’s misdeeds and follies. He tried to use Canon Law to silence them, and the Vatican didn’t allow it. This is hardly an indication that the Society’s masses are fine to attend. Mr. Wilson, the attorney for the six, indicates as follows:

For an organization to be included in Bishop Bruskewitz’s legislation [excommunicating Society members] three conditions must be present: (1) It must have members in the Diocese of Lincoln; (2) membership therein is deemed by the bishop to be perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith; (3) it asserts falsely that membership does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church.

Let me state my position right off the bat. There is no doubt in my mind that conditions (1) and (3) apply to the Society and there is persuasive evidence that condition (2) also applies. I support Bishop Bruskewitz’s action and offer the following article in support of my conclusions.

---

Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence those six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop’s follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX.

[patent]

By the way, as long as you are making a fool of yourself, why not also admit you were wrong about the number of SSPX adherents?

Because you haven’t even tried to prove it. I don’t know how many adherents they have. It appears, neither do you. All you have is a guess.

People who attend SSPX Masses are just plain old Catholics. THEY know this. It's high time the rest of you caught on.

These people weren’t SSPXers, so your claim is meaningless. Nor were they excommunicated for attending Mass, despite the SSPX’s best attempts to infer otherwise.

You obviously don't know the history of this case. The bishop had warned the ladies to stay away from SSPX Masses. They did not.

LOL. Read the document from the Bishop, he didn’t say anything of the sort. Here, I’ll give you another copy, in case you missed it above:

They didn’t attend an SSPX chapel either, so even if he had tried to warn them about Mass attendance, it wouldn’t have been at an SSPX chapel.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"Uh...the bishop's actions were overturned. Therefore: no schism, no excommunication. Also, don't pretend you are not familiar with the case: the bishop began by warning them not to go to SSPX Masses."

Are you and ultima swapping talking points again??

;-)

Yes, the bishop's actions were overturned. But they were not excommunicated for habitual assistance at non-Catholic SSPX Masses. They were excommunicated for having the non-Catholic Mr. Williamson perform confirmations.

"He used the confirmation as a pretext to go after them for assisting at SSPX Mass."

That may be so. And his legal strategy failed. That says nothing about whether or not these folks are schismatics. It says that on the grounds that the bishop cited, they are not.

"You can contort all you like, but them's the facts of the case."

ROTFLMAO. Please, yer killin' me! You really ought to take up a comedy act!

"So you and your buddies here who scream "schismatic" at those of us who assist at SSPX Masses do NOT have the Vatican on your side."

Well, the Vatican has instructed you to stop, and has indicated that this is the path to schism. Whether you, Zviadist, as an individual, have already made it to your destination, or are still on your journey, is difficult to say.

But keep trying and you'll get there!

;-)


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Christ gave us a sure method of telling the true from the false prophets. By their fruits we would know them. We've seen the fruits of the NewChurch: scandal and apostasy--not only here, but everywhere. It is you who defend this. I do not.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"You people are simply incapable of stringing two thoughts together without name-calling and defamation. It underscores the fragility of your argument."

LOL!!! Really, Z, you need to hit the club circuit! Quit your day job! Become a comedian! Really!

You often are one of the nastiest non-Catholic posters, here.

I think that there is a word for it... Lemmee think... Starts with "h"... Rhymes with "leprosy"...


sitetest

[OLD REGGIE]

The real threat to the faith is not posed by attending any traditional Mass but by attending the New Mass which suppresses Catholic doctrines and opposes Trent.

Opposes Trent? Your "Tradition" is less than 700 years old. Everything is "new" in it's day. Trent is "New".

[WriteOn]

I'm sure that there are valid, logically valid, reasons to debate the liturgy. Folks will do it forever. The liturgy will change. It is a given. It has always changed, except for a *brief* period, by church standards of time.

There are good arguments to keep on changing it. But these are not good reasons to reject the Church or its magisterium.

[ultima ratio]

Nice of you to post the Bishop of Honolulu's ridiculous letter on the Catholic ladies' horrible dealings with SSPX. (Horrors!) He sounded very much like you and Sitetest when it comes to SSPX, full of storm and fury, but signifying nothing. He too was badly informed and had visions of schisms dancing in his head. I'm glad the good cardinal set him straight.

[Zviadist]

They were excommunicated for having the non-Catholic Mr. Williamson perform confirmations.

Correction: they were not excommunicated. A sex-pervert bishop attempted to excommunicate them for assistance at SSPX Masses and was over-ruled by the Vatican. You and Patent can contort yourselves as much as you like, but the case is what it is: a vindictive sicko bishop trying to destroy any last vestiges of traditional Catholicism in his diocese. Why am I not surprised the he was later busted for his perversions? But I have yet to see you guys attacking this one-time bishop for "hating the Church." I guess his disgusting activities are alright by you as long as long as he is your partner in destroying Catholic Tradition. Shows your true colors...

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"'The single act was not, of itself, schism.'

"Which has been our argument: there was no schism. At least you concede this."

Well, not quite. There is a schism. All those consecrated by Mr. Lefebvre are no longer Catholic. All those ordained by Mr. Lefebvre after his excommunication, and by the non-Catholics including Fellay and Williamson, are no longer Catholic, either.

The status of an individual layperson who regularly assists at SSPX Masses is murky. All are imbibing of a schismatic mentality. It is likely some become schismatics.

"But contrary to your false assertion, Cardinal Ratzinger did not state that people who attend SSPX Masses are just plain old Catholics.

"He did not say they were not just plain old Catholics either, did he?"

Who is "he"? Ultima? Well, if that is to whom you're referring, please re-read his posts. Here is one, post 472:

To: patent

Sorry, but there's just no wiggle-room in this argument of yours. The bishop excommunicated these people for schism. Cardinal Ratzinger said they were not in schism, hence no excommunication. There's no way you can get around something as explicit as that. No schism. Zilch. People who attend SSPX Masses are just plain old Catholics. THEY know this. It's high time the rest of you caught on.


472 posted on 12/03/2002 3:59 PM EST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

* * *

"Which of us is without blame? Besides, you are extrapolating much from his actual statement, coming to conclusions that were not in Ratzinger's actual statement."

I don't need Cardinal Ratzinger's statements. I have the pope's. He has excommunicated those who formally adhere to the SSPX schism, and he has instructed Catholic laity to cease all support and assistance to the SSPX, and told us not to assist at their Masses.

That's good enough for me.


sitetest

[patent]

Nice of you to post the Bishop of Honolulu's ridiculous letter on the Catholic ladies' horrible dealings with SSPX. (Horrors!) He sounded very much like you and Sitetest when it comes to SSPX, full of storm and fury, but signifying nothing. He too was badly informed and had visions of schisms dancing in his head. I'm glad the good cardinal set him straight.

Interesting. None of what you claim he said is in his letter. Yet you try to claim the letter helps you. He didn’t condemn them for attending a Society Mass, as you claimed over and over, and thus Ratzinger’s actions in overturning the excommunication said nothing at all about the Society or its Masses, as I said. Yet, somehow you shift right into a new position. Recognziing that your errors are laid bare, you claim that sitetest and I sound like the Bishop of Honolulu. Funny, I don’t recall claiming that any of these things are schismatic acts:

(1) Incorporating a chapel
(2) Hosting a radio show critical of the Bishop
(3) Having Williamson do a confirmation in the Chapel
(4) Claim that excommunication is a contagious disease, by stating, as the Bishop did, that “but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication”

Can you show me where I’ve said something like any one of those?

I could accept the idea that Williamson is contagious, but not that one could get an excommunication from standing near him.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

A sex-pervert bishop attempted to excommunicate them for assistance at SSPX Masses and was over-ruled by the Vatican. You and Patent can contort yourselves as much as you like, but the case is what it is: a vindictive sicko bishop trying to destroy any last vestiges of traditional Catholicism in his diocese.

LOL. They were excommunicated for assisting at SSPX Masses? How? There was no SSPX chapel there. At best they hired SSPX priests to freelance for them from time to time, hardly the same thing. Regarless, your claim that this is why they were excommunicated directly contradicts every piece of real evidence we have. It contradicts the Bishop’s letter, and it contradicts the direct testimony of the canon lawyer who represented the Hawaii six. Somehow you know better, apparently, than the people who actually participated in the case.

I guess his disgusting activities are alright by you as long as long as he is your partner in destroying Catholic Tradition. Shows your true colors...

The Bishop’s faults weren’t the issue, whether one can attend the SSPX Masses was the issue. Or do you contend that the answer to that question, whether one may morally attend an SSPX Mass, depends on whether the Bishop is a perv or not? Of course it doesn’t, that is a non sequitur issued by someone losing a debate.

I don’t approve of this Bishop, of what he did with the excommunications, or of his personal “disgusting activities” as you say. That isn’t relevant to the issues here.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Christ gave us a sure method of telling the true from the false prophets. By their fruits we would know them."

Perhaps CG is right. Maybe you are more of a Protestant than an Orthodox. You are using Luther's reasoning. And frankly, it was more applicable in his time than ours.

"We've seen the fruits of the NewChurch: scandal and apostasy--not only here, but everywhere. It is you who defend this. I do not."

Only in your blinkered view of history, which exists only in your mind and the mind of fellow followers of the non-Catholic SSPXers, did scandal not exist prior to this time.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"You and Patent can contort yourselves as much as you like, but the case is what it is: a vindictive sicko bishop trying to destroy any last vestiges of traditional Catholicism in his diocese."

That may be. Despite what you may think, neither patent nor I have defended this bishop. In fact, we note that he was overturned by the Vatican.

But we also note that this does not represent a vindication of the non-Catholic SSPX. It only means that bishops oughtn't overreach.

"Why am I not surprised the he was later busted for his perversions? But I have yet to see you guys attacking this one-time bishop for 'hating the Church.'"

You haven't asked me! Frankly, I know very little about this fellow.

"I guess his disgusting activities are alright by you as long as long as he is your partner in destroying Catholic Tradition. Shows your true colors..."

Ahh... talk about spreading the hate... What was that "h" word again?

I haven't made a single comment in support of his "disgusting activities". Heck, I didn't even support his attempt at excommunication. Your comment borders on slander.



sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear sandyeggo,

You're welcome, friend.

Thanks for the nice comments.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

It's the scale of the corruption that is telling. What we read about is the tip of the iceberg--just the priests that play around with children. It doesn't begin to include the adults horsing around with adults. One thing is for sure: Hollywood won't be making a remake of Going My Way any time soon, thanks to the New Church.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"It's the scale of the corruption that is telling."

It saddens me that you have lost your Catholic faith in part because of the wickedness of some in the priesthood and the hierarchy.

However, read about the abuses prior and following Trent. It gives context to Luther's ignominious rebellion. Concubinage by the clergy, simony that reached up through the priesthood through the episcopacy, all the way, in some cases, to the papacy. It took nearly a hundred years for the reforms of Trent to take hold throughout the Church.

But even when some priests and bishops were at their most corrupt the teaching authority of the Church did not fail.

And it hasn't failed today.

If you were right about all of this, then Luther would be vindicated.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

This is the Pope who awarded an apostate bishop a red hat, a bishop known for his doubts on the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ. This same Pope, who swore a solemn oath to protect Tradition, denied a traditional archbishop the right to consecrate bishops in order to preserve Sacred Tradition itself. The same Pope WITHIN WEEKS came down like a ton of bricks on the traditional FSSP for not allowing some of their priests to concelebrate the Novus Ordo, firing their superior and some of their seminary theologians, while at the same time he has allowed corruption to flourish FOR DECADES in liberal seminaries where apostate theologians openly preach heresy and advocate the gay lifestyle. I rest my case.

[ultima ratio]

I am a practicing Catholic. I haven't lost my faith. But if you had any sense you would see this New Church has. It has deliberately--and very subtly--destroyed any sense of the transcendent and the sacred in its liturgy. The fact that you don't mind being turned into a Protestant is perhaps understandable, given your scant background in real Catholicism. But for me it is intolerable to accept what I believe to be the height of arrogance--i.e., for churchleaders to dare to replace the true faith with this phony admix of Oprah Winfrey and Martin Luther. So pray to the Pope as your god if you will--I'll stick to the old rosary and the old Mass and the old faith.