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.

[ultima ratio]

No, the perversions of the Bishop of Honolulu should have had nothing to do with the decision of Ratzinger's office. But they are instructive. Here you had a corrupt bishop prohibiting Catholic women from attending SSPX Masses and ceremonies. The women wanted to worship God devoutly, the bishop wanted to extend his power. The situation is actually emblematic of the entire modernist Church which rules corruptly and in defiance of Catholic Tradition. SSPX is the corrective to this disordered situation.

[Desdemona]

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.

This needs some clean-up. You're both right. Yes, he was an actor in a theater group. Yes, he was in the anti-Nazi underground. Undergrounds, in any war (unless you're talking about eco-terrorists), which are more resistance oriented, do not see combat, but do fight in the war.

Please, double check facts.

[drstevej]

What did Aquinas mean in reference to the Eucharist when he said, "All I have written is straw?" I am not familiar with the quote. I presume the inference is that a philosophical explanation is inferior to an apprehension by faith. Or was he denying the philosophical explanation?

<>A little knowledge can be dangerous - witness me:).<>

A touch of humor and humility. Watch out! :0) True statement none the less.

[ultima ratio]

Your reading of Campos is ludicrous. Rome gave them the moon--and then some. It was Rome who succumbed. Campos gave up nothing, retracted nothing. In return for nothing, Rome lifted its phony excommunication and promised a considerable measure of independence--though for how long, remains to be seen. Rome is not known for keeping its word on these matters.

Which is why I still think it's a bad bargain. Because Rome has not yet renounced its revolution and desire to destroy the pre-conciliar Church. It believes it can use Campos to seduce the SSPX by blandishments and privileges without doing so. But the SSPX owes its allegiance before all else to the Catholic faith--not to the Vatican bureaucracy which assaults it.

[Polycarp]

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.

Thanks Sitetest.

DrSteveJ,

This is a perfect summary.

[ultima ratio]

In a sense everybody was "in the underground" in Poland if they did anything forbidden. My point was he did not engage in combat in an anti-Nazi unit such as the Resistance in France.

[Desdemona]

I have a question for you. Do you see ANYTHING good in the main body of the Church at this time?

Your posts are exceedingly negative and that is not helping your cause. Granted, there are some people here who have not been at their best in this debate, but, in a way of constructive criticism, your posts are sometimes over the top.

[RobbyS]

It does become tiresome when someone who claims to be Catholic pretends to the right to judge what he is not competant to judge. If I am a lawyer, I may SAY that Roe v. Wade is unconstititional, beased on MY reading of law. That does not mean MY reading is in any way authoitative. Only a court is authoritative. Now I know this is not simply a matter of legal authority, but one does not get anywhere simply by railing against competant authority. I agree w ith you about many particular criticism of the new mass. I think it simplistic to blame decline in faith in the Trusde Presence,for instance, simply on it. The basic problem is not the mass but the failure of priests and nuns and religion teachers to support the doctrine in a clear and unambiguous way.

[ultima ratio]

But it's the theological meaning behind the words which matter. If a high percentage of all Catholics think the Real Presence means Christ is only "spiritually" or virtually present, then that's still alarming. I wouldn't be so comforted by this, but see the survey as a wake-up call.

[Zviadist]

Thanks for your reasoned replies on this thread. I certainly have much more affinity for honest protestants like yourself than for hate-spewing pseudo-Catholic modernists.

[drstevej]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Zviadist]

You have to remember that Latin changed over the centuries also.

Only its use in the vernacular. Not its ecclesiastic use.

[Zviadist]

You know, when you post pictures like that with a caption suggesting hula masses, something that picture is not of, so far as I can tell, one starts to wonder if Catholicguy is correct about your partiality, and your selective trust in ultima.

Do you deny the reality of hula "Masses"? Or does drstevej's mentioning it just embarass you and your positions? I have seen videos of these "Masses"; I know they exist. drstevej's posted pic was not much different from the video I saw. I have seen them. As well as hockey "Masses", limbo-dance "Masses", etc. Funny that you don't like it when others mention them. Even our friendly protestant guest here finds them absurd and deeply disturbing.

[Zviadist]

how well do you think pollsters can gauge belief in the Real Presence, when they can't even figure out who people will vote for?

Looks like you are making excuses for the result. It looks pretty simple to me, and I am not even a professional pollster: "Do you believe in the real Presence of Christ at Mass?" People answer yes or no. I think you are attempting to divert attention from the answers they did receive. And make excuses for the total failure of the post-Vatican II Church to raise the next generation of Catholics. Those are the real fruits: a non-Catholic Catholic Church.

[ultima ratio]

Do I see anything good in the Church today? That's like asking a Frenchman during WWII if he saw ANYTHING good in the Nazi occupation. We have an ecclesiastical occupation that is not only morally and administratively incompetent, but is committed to the liberal intention of destroying Tradition. It has already used its wrecking ball to smash traditional Catholic culture, the traditional Catholic liturgy, traditional Catholic devotions, traditional Catholic belief. You want me to be positive. How is this possible, given the extent of the crimes committed?

[Desdemona]

Do you deny the reality of hula "Masses"? Or does drstevej's mentioning it just embarass you and your positions? ... As well as hockey "Masses", limbo-dance "Masses", etc. ...Even our friendly protestant guest here finds them absurd and deeply disturbing.

Yes, they are disturbing. And, no, they are not acceptable. Here, we agree. In this group, across the board.

[drstevej]

To the extent this is a compliment, thanks. To the extent this is leverage to take a poke at the otherside, I'd prefer not to be your sharp stick.

Hope you understand.

[drstevej]

***Even our friendly protestant guest here finds them absurd and deeply disturbing.***

I also find it strange when I see a Protestant pastor on TV preaching to his church covered in mud and standing in a make-shift pig sty constructed on the stage in order to convey the story of the Prodigal.

And that's tame compared to some of the "Protestant"-whackos.

[ultima ratio]

Look, the old Mass is traditional. It is Catholic. It has evolved over two millenia under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. Up until thirty years ago it was the traditional Mass of the Catholic Church. The new Mass was INVENTED by a committee. It did NOT evolve, it has NO divine protection, it is deficient theologically and aesthetically--so much so that ever since its institution it has been the subject of criticism and talk of reform. Now I didn't dream this stuff up. One Mass is traditional, the other is not. Do I need a pope or a tribunal to tell me this? Or to tell me that Assisi is not traditional or that kissing the Koran is not traditional or that pouring libations in a Togo forest is not traditional?

It is infuriating to have somebody like yourself claim such nonsense. We have two thousand years of history, of saintly testimony, of councils, of papal encyclicals, even of living witnesses today, to guide us. We don't need a Vatican bureaucrat, or even the Pope himself, to decide what's traditional--especially when we see these are the very ones doing all they can to destroy everything traditional in sight. Such a perspective is ludicrous.

I follow Tradition. It is the Tradition of the Catholic Church as it has been known and practiced for two thousand years. I have two thousand years of popes and councils behind me. All you have is a couple of misguided popes and a single ambiguous pastoral council. Yet you opt for revolution against everything that went before, rather than for Sacred Tradition. Fine. Now watch as the mess unravels. This new thing of yours cannot possibly be blessed. It is being left to its own core devices--which are corrupt and heretical.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Rome gave them the moon--and then some. It was Rome who succumbed."

Well, I suppose that wasn't enough, since the SSPX has decided that it was a bad deal for Campos, not Rome.

Here are some things that the Church did NOT give Campos, and for which the SSPX are holding out (excerpted from a letter by Mr. Fellay):

"That letter, published in the August 2001 issue of The Angelus, responded to Rome’s refusal to grant the conditions, namely that it be stated that all priests in the world have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass, and that the Society was never schismatic and never broke communion. In response to Cardinal Castrillon’s refusal to accept that we have the right to reject the errors of Vatican II, he explained the state of necessity that is the basis of our refusal of compromise. The response to those who attack the Society for working on a hidden agreement is that there have been no discussions since then, since there is no common ground to work from."

Read that carefully, ultima. The Church refused to recognize that the SSPX has the right to "reject the errors of Vatican II", refuses to acknowledge that the SSPX was never schismatic (I guess the argument that the Church doesn't see the SSPX as schismatic goes right out the window), refuses to grant to all priests the right to say the old Mass.

Here is part of the joint statement by Bishops Rangel and Guimaraes:

"We further remember the invitation of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II: ‘All pastors and other faithful must have a new consciousness not only of the legitimacy but also of the riches that the diversity of charisms, traditions, spirituality and apostolate represent for the Church. This diversity also constitutes the beauty of unity in diversity: this is the symphony that, under the action of the Holy Ghost, the earthly Church elevates to heaven’ (Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta). It is thus with intense happiness that we communicate to all this gesture of kindness of the Holy Father, the Pope, wishing an ever-increasing union among Catholics –‘unity in diversity’ –as the Holy Father wishes, for the greater glory of God and honor of the Holy Church."

Mr. Fellay especially didn't like this "unity in diversity" bit. But Campos swallowed it.

Can the SSPX do likewise?

I guess Campos didn't get the moon, after all.

But in all truth, the Church asks very little of Campos or the SSPX. Only to submit truly to the Roman Pontiff. Only to fully acknowledge and accept the new Mass and the Council and its results. That is what Campos gave, and that is what sticks in the throat of the SSPX.

Campos reserved the right to offer "constructive criticism" of the new Mass, but "constructive criticism" is criticism given to assist in building up. One does not offer to assist to build up that which one believes ought to be torn down. One does not offer to assist to build up what one believes to be inherently bad.

Can the SSPX offer "constructive criticism" of the new Mass? This is to acknowledge not only the validity, but the intrinsic worthiness of the new Mass. Can the SSPX recognize the validity and worthiness of the new Mass, and help to take this good thing and make it better (possibly to the detriment of the desire of many to assist at the old Mass)?

Campos has truly submitted to papal authority. That means that the successors to Bishop Rangel must be approved by the Church.

Can the SSPX accept that once Mr. Fellay, Mr. Williamson, and others, pass on, that their successors must be approved by the pope? That was the root of the schism in the first place, after all. The pope was willing to approve of the consecration of a bishop to succeed Archbishop Lefebvre, but the pope reserved to himself the right to approve the number so consecrated, and the specific selection of the bishop or bishops to succeed Archbishop Lefebvre. And Archbishop Lefebvre refused, and drove off into schism.

If the SSPX can do these good works, then there is likely little that keeps it from full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. Would that the SSPX accept the arrangement offered Campos.

Perhaps, then, Rome really accepted little in return for what it gave.

But if the SSPX cannot do these things, then it seems to me that the Church didn't really give Campos the moon, and more, but rather, Campos gave the Church the moon, in return for the favor of being permitted to return to the One True Church of Jesus Christ.


sitetest