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.

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.

Not according to the Vatican:

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)
"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI"
Under Signature of Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998

"It is true that 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.'"

So why do you continue to lie about the status of the SSPX?

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

Oh my, I guess that changes everything!!! This hair-splitting over inconsequential parts of the story is getting pretty pathetic. Another of your lawyerly tricks? Sorry, this is not your courtroom.

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

So what the hell are you going on about, anyway?

But we also note that this does not represent a vindication of the non-Catholic SSPX.

Once again you blatantly disregard and disobey the explicit ruling of the Vatican:

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)
"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

It is kind of funny how you and your buddies constantly accuse us of disobeying the Vatican while your disobedience is blatant and continuous. The Vatican rules one way and you simply spit on its position. Odd.

The vernacular liturgy succeeds the Latin liturgy just as the Latin succeeded the Greek in the 3rd Century and the Russian succeeded the Greek in the 10th Century. It is unfortunate that our American English litugy is so banal. Compare it with the Book of Common Prayer, which is one of the great works of English literature. It badly needs a master hand to save it from t committee speak.

The vernacular liturgy succeeds the Latin liturgy just as the Latin succeeded the Greek in the 3rd Century and the Russian succeeded the Greek in the 10th Century.

Can the vernacular, which is by its nature local, fluid, and ever-changing, properly capture something as permanent and unchanging as the Mass for more than an instant?

I don't ask this as someone raised in the Latin Mass. The only language I know is English. Yet it seems a frail vessel for so great an object. Particularly when one desires "vernacular" English, which isn't truly the same all over the English speaking world today, let alone over the centuries.

The Book of Common Prayer was in English, but surely not the "vernacular" English of the day. And especially not the vernacular English of those that used it down the centuries.

Do I hate the vernacular, or find it inappropriate to all prayer? Certainly not. Some of the most sincere and personal of all prayer is undoubtedly offered to God in vernacular form, and no less precious to Him for it. I simply wonder if the proper tool is being applied to the particular work that is the Mass.

If you read the letter of the Honolulu bishop closely you will see Mrs. Morley was being castigated for "impugning the Roman missal" of 1970 and causing confusion and scandal by aligning herself with SSPX. What else is this but a reference to her preference for the traditional Mass said by the SSPX? She had received prior warnings about her attendance at these "illicit" Masses. It is clear the "excommunication" was intended in part to punish her for these actions which the bishop considered schismatic. He was as wrong as you are.

After 12 years of Catholic school, they had been so misguided that it's difficult to get through to them with authentic Catholic teaching. Well, isn't that interesting. You and your ilk blame the Pope for EVERYTHING that happens. However, when it comes to YOUR kids being badly educated, YOU are not to blame. Oh no. It is the fault of the school.

Mull that one over for awhile before you blame the Pope next time<>

As I have said, when you have nothing to add relevant to the argument, you attack the character of the person delivering the information. The slanderer who runs your little home-grown website is a hell of a lot less credible than that which appears on traditio or similar established websites. But you don't care: you are desperate to draw attention away from the fact that you cannot refute the information presented. Pathetic.

<> Thanks for running that one down. EVERY Time we check out one of Ultima's claims, it is proved to be made-up or a badly mangled form of what really occured.

WE all know that won't stop him. He'll just plow on attacking the Pope and reposting the same old "facts" that have repeatedly been shown to have been lies

It kinda makes one wonder why drstevej is so supportive of him :)<>

Trent instituted reforms under the leadership of the Society of Jesus. Vatican II did just the opposite. Instead of reforms it unleashed a torrent of disorienting changes accompanied by corruption and apostasy. I'm not saying there were no fallen priests before the Council. But the moral standards back then were much higher generally and the number of scandals were minimal. Faith was strong. This is not true today and the floodgates have been opened. In more than forty years not a single real reform has come out of Rome--just slogans and promises. First we were to Catch the Spirit, then we were to Prepare for the Jubilee, now it's the Reform of the Reform. All a lot of hooey and public relations. Yet the corruption has been systemic.

Meanwhile let me tell you what's going on at the ground level. Bishops are pushing their values-neutral sex education agenda--complete with graphic discussions of condom use and anal and oral sex, as well as sado-masochism and homosexuality--in parochial schools. When parents protest to Rome, nothing happens. Priests continue to play around openly and scandalously--with other priests. The gay agenda is alive and well. This is plain old pharisaism, hypocrisy burdening the people. I'm still holding my breath waiting for that "draft" proposal to be finalized prohibiting gays from becoming candidates for the priesthood. Wanna bet it never happens?

***It kinda makes one wonder why drstevej is so supportive of him :)***

Maybe the thought of Hula Masses is too mind blowing. :0)

Actually, I neither agree with ultima's views or have I researched the basis of his conclusions (before reading these threads I would have thought a NO Mass was one done in the French Quarter).

Where I identify with UR is his concern that his religious core beliefs not be eroded by an ecumenical urge to relate to people at the expense of doctrine.

It would seem to me that if 60%+ of RCs either do not understand or do not believe the Real Presence (and I get that number from reading these threads) that the wisest course would be to keep that doctrine central in the Mass. I do not believe the doctrine, but if I did I would want that fact communicated as clearly and unmistakeably as possible. This is what I hear UR arguing.

Please no flames. You asked.

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.