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.

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"How much of it do you think is a form of intellectual laziness?"

I don't know.

But I think that this has been an on-going problem, at least here in the United States.

I think that in this country, prior to WWII, most Catholics were either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Many of these immigrants were not well-educated. The religious education provided by the Church seems to have mirrored their secular education.

My parents were taught some rules and regulations about how to be a Catholic. They weren't taught much about the theology behind the rules and regulations. They were quite confused when the rules and regulations were changed. It was initially difficult for them to understand that abstaining from meat on Fridays was not an eternal dogma of the Church.

And then, in the case of my parents, they went to the other extreme, and figured that ANY sort of moral rule was subject to change. But they were susceptible to that because when they were children, they really weren't taught much at all.

In the past few years, I've come to know a lot of older Catholics, folks a decade or two or three older than me. Through participation in the Knights of Columbus (average age, about 85 - well, maybe a little younger ;-) ), and other activities, I've met a lot of folks older than myself. Some are very well-educated Catholics. Most are not. I'm coming to the conclusion that the sort of religious education that my parents received wasn't all that unusual.

In my parish, we recently started Bible study, Des. I was a bit surprised to find how little some folks knew about the Bible. Obviously, the amount of education most folks received concerning Sacred Scripture wasn't very much.

And it probably still isn't. The fact is, the religious education in Catholic schools around here ranges from not-too-bad to pretty good. But religious education in CCD ranges from not-too-good to pretty awful.

I don't think it's exactly intellectual laziness. I think it is lack of motivation. If it ain't that important to you, you won't make the effort. That isn't really laziness, it's just not caring.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Apologize? Not on your life. Catholicguy is pretty contemptible in my book. Right now he owes both myself and Bud McDuell an apology for calling us "sons of Satan" because our view on the Church didn't meet with his approval. You guys have all the tolerance of Muslim fanatics on a bad day. You both really ought to sign up for Islam--you've got the appropriately closed psychologies.

[RobbyS]

Jacques Barzun points out that the sexual Revolution took place, not in the 1960s but in the 1890s. It began with the European middle classes and spread through western society. In a way it is simply the sexual practices of the aristocracy, many of whom had never paid more than lip service to Christian sexual. Not for nothing did the flower children of the '60s talk about "middle-class morality." They were really aristocrats, the children of privilege.

[ultima ratio]

My, my, getting personal again. Run out of ideas that quickly? You Novus Ordo types have low threshholds. A few exchanges and--bam! We're attention-seekers! We have no lives! We have taste obsessions! And worst of all--we're schismatics!

[ultima ratio]

I'm not talking about architecture or the decorative arts. I'm talking about teaching small Catholic kids about oral sex and sado-masochism in parochial schools. I'm talking about priests who get punished for reporting corruption. I'm talking about a Pope who awards red hats to apostates. This is not the way it's supposed to be. The system is broken and needs fixing bad. You couldn't satirize any of this--reality is already way beyond satire. Yet Rome will insist Lefebvre was wrong and that the Church was and is not in crisis--even while everything is collapsing into a gigantic black hole.

[ultima ratio]

The smugness of this post is beyond telling. Maximilian opened up, he was candid, he spoke from the gut and was humble--and he was inspiring. You counter with your one-upmanship. If this doesn't prove the point, nothing does. You are predictably pharisaic, pushing your proud self way up front to brag to the Lord how admirable you are--which is pretty much how it goes at a self-worshiping Novus Ordo. Max's story was beautiful; yours is repulsive.

[RobbyS]

Man, you have lost your nerve. Did the fact that Alexander VI was pope never register with you? Or the fact that Francis Borgia was a saint. Consider what such men as Phillip Neri and Ignatius Loyola had to contend with because they were able to turn the papacy away from the sink of desolation that it seemed to be falling into. Stop ranting about the disappearance of the Church you thought you knew and face up to the reality. The barque of Peter is tossing on stormy seas and here you are raving at the pilot.

[ultima ratio]

Your patronizing tone is incredible for somebody so limited. You talk as if you were the Pope and God-Almighty at the same time.

[ultima ratio]

Let me see if I got you straight. Your kids come home from parochial school with all this "traditional Catholic doctrine, practice and piety" and you say this is the fruit of Vatican II? Are you serious? Why bother to have a council then, since all this was common before the council? Ever hear of the Baltimore Catechism, the old Latin Mass, the Rosary, Our Lady of Fatima, the saints, the Real Presence, Expiation for sins? All of this was common stuff before Vatican II. If these were the fruits of Vatican II, how come catechesis is in crisis? How come I've seen teenagers stand up with their hands in their pockets during the Consecration at Novus Ordo Masses? How come an ex-Jesuit acquaintance I know--who admits he does not believe in Christ's divinity--was still hired to teach Christology to Catholic kids in a nearby diocese? What planet are you living on?

[Desdemona]

I don't think it's exactly intellectual laziness. I think it is lack of motivation. If it ain't that important to you, you won't make the effort. That isn't really laziness, it's just not caring.

There is defintely something to this. Personally, I like to hang out in museums and tour historical sites and browse antique malls. Many people I know have never heard of the Smithsonian. I used to know Air & Space and the American History Museum like the back of my hand. It's just sad.

[ultima ratio]

Another howler. Do you ever talk to anybody over sixty? Do you ever read a book? Do you swallow ALL the liberal propaganda you are told to swallow? Read Iota Unum. If you haven't read it, you should. Vatican II was a sea-change. After it came the Deluge.

[ultima ratio]

Not at all. You have a strange way of arguing. First you deny things are abnormal. When I point out they are, you tell me to lighten up. But I was making a point. Lefebvre was using the present crisis as a reason for disobedience. He saw Rome desired to destroy Tradition and would not play along. For this he was punished severely. What do you suppose these threads have been about, if not whether the charge of schism was justified? I have been trying to show it was not--and to do this I must make the case.

It is also to illustrate what the cause of the crisis is. If we can't--or won't--name it, we can't possibly resolve it. Example: the bishops won't come to terms with the gay subculture. But they won't stop the scandals until they do? You, however, would tell them instead to lighten up, the barque of Peter is being tossed, the waves will be calmed eventually in the future. This is hooey. We have got to reform and eliminate corruption--which means naming our problems and desisting in destroying the foundations of our faith.

[patent]

You're a hoot. God bless.

[BlackElk]

I was away from my computer most of 12/4/02 and missed this post of yours. Thank you very much for a superb post.

[sitetest]

Dear BlackElk,

Thanks for the compliment.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"Many people I know have never heard of the Smithsonian."

Right. You're motivated (By the way, I like museums, too. Before the onset of parenthood, my wife and I spent a lot of time on the Mall in DC.).


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear RobbyS,

"Jacques Barzun points out that the sexual Revolution took place, not in the 1960s but in the 1890s."

The storm was gathering a long time.

The pre-Vatican II Church was in some crucial ways unprepared for it.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

When you get done with all the insults, perhaps you can try to make an argument.

Also, before attempting to make an argument, re-read my posts so that at least you will not further embarrass yourself by missing facts already presented.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Apologize? Not on your life. Catholicguy is pretty contemptible in my book. Right now he owes both myself and Bud McDuell an apology for calling us "sons of Satan" because our view on the Church didn't meet with his approval."

So, if Catholicguy wrongs you, you are entitled to wrong him back?? Two wrongs make a right?? Forgive me if I have a problem discerning the teachings of Jesus in all this.


sitetest

[Catholicguy]

<> Thanks for the kind words and defense<>