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.

I'm looking like a wild lady for that magnificent post you wrote suggesting that Cardinal Law made a public apology and send it to everyone and step down. Where is it?

I can't link but there is a very interesting article posted late tonight by Katracks. The article is by Pat Buchanan and is about the President of Harvard apologizing for the way a little group of perverts was punished by the University in 1920.Somehow I connect it with what is happening right now in the Church.I would be so interested in how the ringleaders of this group were connected in society.If you can find it I would be interested in your take on it. Thanks.

You wouldn't know an authentic liturgy from the latest sighting of Elvis

<> Last summer, while in Bar Harbor, Maine, I saw Elvis Bungee-jumping from a Coast Guard helicopoter over the Cranberry Isalnds off the coast of Mt. Desert Island. The chopper was being piloted by D.B. Cooper.

Well, at least that was what I thought it was initially. Once I used my binoculars, I could see it was merely a weird cloud formation<>

Dear drstevej,

One of the studies that I've seen cited here on FR indicated that something like onlyh 1/3 of Catholics believe in the Real Presence.

What the study actually found is that only 1/3 of Catholics could accurately discern that the doctrine of transubstantiation is the teaching of the Cathoic Church regarding transubstantiation.

The overwhelming number of Catholic respondents indicated belief in the Real Presence (something like 80% or so). The difficulty came when asked to choose what they believed from among an array of theological positions. Only 1/3 of respondents accurately chose the selection which described transubstantiation.

In my view, the study demonstrated two things: that Catholics overwhelmingly believe in the Real Presence - they have Catholic faith; that Catholics are poorly catechized, or perhaps that many Catholics have forgotten what they were once taught, and that there is need for on-going religious education for Catholics.

Of course, someone posted not too long ago a complaint from Pope St. Pius X lamenting the poor catechesis amongst even educated Catholics of his day. The more things change...

sitetest

I am not much of a fan of Cardinal Maida but did he not require and obtain public recantation from Fr. "Doc" Ortman who was the leftist AmChurch source of the nonsense as to the Church being "Pro-choice"?

Actually, I don't know if he did or not. I don't have a particular complaint about Cardinal Maida (other than his refusal to point out Ms. Granholm by name and rebuke her for misleading the public on Catholic teaching - but that was a question of his methods, not his orthodoxy).

I know there are other bishops who would have let the matter go without mention. And I fear priests like Fr. Ortman may some day be elevated to bishop themselves. It's whole dioceses full of Ortmans that worry me.

To those of you in orthodox parishes this may sound paranoid. But try hopping from church to church several Sundays in a row and having difficulty finding a Church that wasn't, if not explicitly heretical, certainly hostile to Catholic doctrine (and I'm not talking about felt banners). You begin to realize you're not looking at an isolated renegade priest here or there.

We get Catholicism by passing it to our children. "Let George do it" doesn't work except in Chicago.

That is certainly true. But Catholicism was never meant to be a private religion that took place only in the home. It was supposed to encompass our public prayer life as well. The Catholic parish is supposed to be at the center of that.

<> Amen, brother. I have never met a real Catholic who didn't believe in the real presence. Few of our brethren are acquainted with theolgy and doctrine per se, but that is not what we will be judged on.

I am trying to recall the great Saint and intellectual who was speaking about his own judgement and the praise others gave him for his intellect and knwoledge. He reminded them that his and their judgement would not be an examination of Doctrinal or theological knowledge

It is not what we know, it is what we do that matters. All the Heresiarchs were smart, and look where it got them. <>

Dear Zviadist,

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

Lying includes the intention to deceive. That is not my intent. I believe what I've posted, whether you do or not. It's sad that one like you, ever complaining about the nastiness of others, falsely accuses me of lying.

Your second citation isn't relevant to the status of the non-Catholic SSPX clergy. And as many of us have pointed out repeatedly, no one alleges that assisting at a non-Catholic SSPX Mass, of itself, one time, puts one in schism.

But Messrs. Fellay, Williamson, etc., have been judged in schism by the pope.

In your arrogance and pride, you mistake the mercy of the Church for weakness. Ultima does this, as well. The Church desires to heal the rift between the schismatics and herself. Formalizing the schism to the point of treating the SSPX like a long-departed group such as the Orthodox or the Lutherans, would harden the schism, possibly beyond the point of healing. Recognizing that the SSPX, though not-quite Catholic, is almost-Catholic, and made up of clergy who not so long ago were Catholic, the Church treats this as an internal manner. To the degree that she can, she overlooks the brazen insult of those who have cried "Non serviam", and tries to bring healing.

This, you distort and contort to salve your consciences, to tell yourselves that you can embrace schism and yet be Catholic. This, in your arrogance and pride, you see as the weakness of the Church's position, imagining then, that the SSPX operates from strength. Like Christ Himself, the church makes herself weak for your sake. She approaches the SSPX in modesty, humility, not because she is wrong, but because she wishes to induce the SSPX back to communion with her, and she believes that dealing strictly from justice would be just, but unproductive in coaxing back the SSPX.

Campos proves her wisdom. In Campos, the schismatics submitted to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, the Supreme Pontiff lifted the excommunications, welcomed back the stray sheep into the fold, and all is well.

The gentle, but firm discipline applied to Campos has had its medicinal value, and the patient is on the mend.

It is in your spiritual blindness that you mistake the gentle, considerate, and compassionate bedside manner of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, for some sort of sanction for the SSPX schism, or for true weakness on the part of the Catholic Church, or any strength on the part of the SSPX.

I'm praying for you, too, Z.

sitetest

<>Few of our brethren are acquainted with theolgy and doctrine per se<>

Why?

<>It is not what we know, it is what we do that matters.<>

Are not right doctrine and right living connected?

"A right conception of God is basic not only to systematic theology but to practical Christian living as well. I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.

It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current today [1961] is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity ... The man who comes to a right belief about God is relieved often of a thousand moral problems."

-- Dr A. W Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

You recall incorrectly. Karol Wojtlywa, did not serve in the anti-Nazi underground, as you say, though he was an actor in a prohibited troupe which gave solace to the population with plays which were patriotic and inspiring. But he never fought. In any case his role during the war is beside the point. So is his exemplary role as a world statesman. What is at issue is his papacy, which has been a clear failure--unless it had been his intention to expedite the wreckage of the pre-conciliar Church. We do not need a creative pope. We need a man of order and discipline who will protect Sacred Tradition. This he has not done.

Dear drstevej,

It is one thing to believe in the Real Presence. It is relatively easily grasped by the intellect.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, on the other hand, is not so readily grasped, especially in the current era. It is a far more subtle explication of the Real Presence than merely stating, "This is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The doctrine of transubstantiation assumes knowledge of other philosophical constructs which are often alien to the mind of the modern believer. You go and try to explain "substance" and "accidents". It isn't that easy.

That the overwhelming majority of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is a good thing. That large numbers get confused in the details of "substance" and "accidents" and whatnot may be regrettable, but it is understandable.

"Are not right doctrine and right living connected?"

Certainly. As far as one has capacity to understand doctrine. There is a young lady in my parish who has Down Syndrome. She is an active participant in parish life. She receives the Eucharist weekly. She believes in the Real Presence. I don't think that she could accurately pick out the doctrine of transubstantiation from competing doctrines at a rate much greater than random chance.

That doesn't mean she doesn't have right doctrine. It means she has it to the degree that she is capable.

So it is for many Catholics. If you ask them questions within their boundaries of theological competence, education, and capacity, you will often find them to be thoroughly orthodox, or at least willing to learn what is orthodox teaching, and to accept it on hearing it. If you ask them questions beyond those boundaries, you will unfairly draw the conclusion that they have wrong doctrine.

The Mystery of the Eucharist is a great mystery, indeed. It is an inexhaustible mystery. Though we can sufficiently grasp the mystery through the True Teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, that teaching does not exhaust the Mystery of the Eucharist.

And just as the teaching of the Church hasn't exhausted that mystery, many Catholics have not exhausted even the Church's understanding of that mystery. For some Catholics, that may be due to indolence. For others, it is certainly a result of reaching personal limitations.

Generally speaking, I give the benefit of the doubt to my Catholic brothers and sisters.

sitetest

Are not right doctrine and right living connected?

<> Yeah. But the connections is not always in that assumed positive direction. I know many, like myself, who are not unfamiliar with Christian Doctrine yet routinely sin.

One of the greatest intellects of all time, St.Thomas Aquinas, who explained the meaning of transubstantiation using accidents and substance, was given a vision near the end of his days. After the vision of what the Eucharist really entails, he declared "All I have written is straw."

Those who followed Jesus, knowing He had the words of eternal life, even though they were not intellectually equipped to dispute with the learned amongst the crowd that fell away (John 6) were right in their behavior.

A little knowledge can be dangerous - witness me:). Knowledge CAN serve love. It can also,combined with a disordered will, lead one to imitate Lucifer.<>

Here's a lesson in moral theology. Some forbidden acts are intrinsically wrong. Taking an innocent life is one of them. But some are not intrinsically wrong--such as breaking and entering, which would be wrong if I did this to steal something or harm somebody, but which would be right if I did this because a house was on fire and I wanted to save some people inside.

Disobedience is not intrinisically wrong. It is never wrong to disobey an improper command. Therefore everything depends on the circumstances of an individual case. In the case of SSPX the scheme hatched by Rome was to prohibit the consecration of traditional bishops to eventually eradicate the traditional priesthood and the old Mass. This was in direct violation of JnPII's own papal oath. The Archbishop properly refused and took advantage of a canon law which provided a cover for such refusal in the case of a crisis. The Archbishop was one hundred per cent correct. The Church was--and is--in crisis.

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.