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 ultima,

When the Church uses the word, it uses it in the sense of "easily taught".

A real traditional Catholic would know that.

Nighty-night.


I'll pray for you in the morning.

;-)


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"You are becoming a site pest."

Oh, yes, we neo-Catholics are so mean, and all we do is call folks names, unlike the saintly ultima ratio and his cohort.

LOL.

"I haven't bothered to read this long screed because I stopped with the insult in the first few sentences."

Or perhaps because the arrow finds its mark.

"You claim you don't judge souls, then proceed to judge mine--again."

Gee, I thought you didn't read my long screed, how would you know??

;-)

"Try getting rid of the log in your own eye before complaining about the splinter in mine."

I'm workin' on it as hard as I can. Part of my penance is engaging schismatics at FR.

"This is pure pharisaism--you ooze unctiousnesss without realizing it."

Maybe I can bottle it and sell it.

"I suspect the Novus Ordo does that to people--makes them quite smug about themselves--which is what self-worship does to people."

ROTFLMAO. I gotta tellya, ultima, I still think you should quit your day job and go on the comedy circuit.

"You badly need the old Mass and a kick in the rear-end besides."

Perhaps my wife was right about your potential propensity for violence.

Listen, ultima, thanks for helping make this thread such a great refutation of everything schismatics stand for. It couldn't have done it without you!


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

A pet poodle is easily taught. Human beings need cogent reasons to believe in what they are told. Even popes are obliged to explain and appeal to the minds of the faithful. Slaves don't, of course, need reasons. --They just obey, blindly, for fear of the master's whip.

[drstevej]

***A pet poodle is easily taught. ***

Have you ever had a poodle? I think they are part cat. :0)

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"A pet poodle is easily taught. Human beings need cogent reasons to believe in what they are told. Even popes are obliged to explain and appeal to the minds of the faithful. Slaves don't, of course, need reasons. --They just obey, blindly, for fear of the master's whip."

Yes, yes, we "neo-Catholics" just keep it up with the insults. Ultima and his friends would never think to, say, compare us to dogs.

LOL.

You just keep talkin', ultima. You just keep providing more and more evidence of how your mindset has become Protestant.

"As I pointed out before, docility is generally confused with subservience. (We tend to forget that ihe word 'docile' is derived from the Latin root which means to teach or be taught.) A person is wrongly thought to be docile if he is passive and pliable. On the contrary, docility is the extremely active virtue of being teachable. No one is really teachable who does not freely exercise his power of independent judgment. The most docile reader is, therefore, the most critical. He is the reader who finally responds to a book by the greatest effort to make up his own mind on the matters the author has discussed.

"I say 'finally' because docility requires that a teacher be fully heard and, more than that, understood, before he is judged. I should add also that sheer amount of effort is not an adequate criterion of docility. The reader must know how to judge a book, just as he must know how to arrive at an understanding of its contents."

- Morton Adler, "HOW TO READ A BOOK: A Guide to Reading the Great Books"

Real Catholics are docile, ultima. With the free exercise of our power of judgement, we willingly submit to the teaching authority of Christ's Church. Not blindly, but with eyes open. Not out of fear, but out of love, grateful for the Pearl of Great Price that we have found.

It's sad that you don't seem to understand this.


sitetest

[drstevej]

***Morton Adler, "HOW TO READ A BOOK: A Guide to Reading the Great Books"***

An outstanding book, highly recommended. Dr. Howard Hendricks at Dallas Seminary required this as reading for his Bible Study Methods course.

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

You know that Dr. Adler was received into the Catholic Church a few years before his death.

;-)


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

First, I never claimed to be a saint or even saintly. I don't tell people whom I dislike intensely that I will pray for them, as you do routinely, in between your wishing I'd go straight to Hell where you think I belong.

I didn't read it your post, I saw the length and said no thanks after the first few poisonous scratchings. As for representation of any group, schismatic or otherwise--you and Catholicguy take the cake for vitriol. You are both without equals in spite and malice on this site.

Have a nice night--I will pray for you; I will make a novena for you; I will make a pilgrimage to Lourdes on my hands and knees for you. I mean this with about the same degree of sincerity as you intend when you purport to pray for me.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"...in between your wishing I'd go straight to Hell where you think I belong."

Wow. Now you can read my mind. That's impressive.

Though you need some practice. I wish, I hope with all my heart that no one goes to Hell, straight or otherwise. Regrettably, it's quite likely that my hope will not be realized.

"...you and Catholicguy take the cake for vitriol."

But you never, ever say anything the least bit insulting, right?

LOL.

"Have a nice night--I will pray for you; I will make a novena for you..."

Thanks! I appreciate that!

"I mean this with about the same degree of sincerity as you intend when you purport to pray for me."

Gee, now I'm disappointed.

By the way, are you calling me a liar? Are you saying that I haven't prayed for you? On numerous occasions?

Come on, ultima, if that's what you mean, then say it, own up to it.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

To confuse your blind obedience to an exercise of judgment is ludicrous. Was the Pope right to kiss the Koran? Answer yes or no. Paralyzed? I can see why. You are caught between slavish devotion and common sense. Of course he was wrong to kiss a book that blasphemes the Holy Trinity. I can see this clearly because I put the faith before the Pope. You can't, because you do the opposite.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

You are asking whether the pope always does what is right, not whether his teaching is without error.

Or whether you are required to obey him when he instructs you not to assist at SSPX Masses.

Common confusion for non-Catholics.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Oh, no you don't, don't pull that with me. I never claimed I couldn't hurl an insult. I only claimed I never crossed the line and called someone a son of Satan or said their souls were full of darkness. But I can certainly feel your malice when you attack me with such comments.

[drstevej]

Wasn't aware of that. And I still think his is a great book. :0)

BTW, Hendricks book on Bible Study Methods is entitled Living by the Book. This course (content is in this book) was the most important course I took in seminary. I commend it to you.

[drstevej]

I'll leave it with your two. Turn the lights out when you are done. :-)

[RobbyS]

I have never said a word about Lefabvre. I have not denied that things are "abnormal" I simply say that things are ALWAYS "abnormal." But there are never going to hell. Somehow we stop short of that cliff. The present crisis in the Church is bad, but let us not forget that two hundred years ago, the papacy came within an inch of being snuffed out by Napoleon. It's actual ascendency to a centrality of control of the universal Church took place after that low point. If we look at the Church in the mid 16th Century before the Council did its work, we see a bad situation that WAS remedied when God raised up such saints as Phillip Neri.

[ultima ratio]

A cop out. Funny how careful you are with distinctions when it suits you. But you are blind to distinctions where anyone else is concerned. For example, in distinguishing when disobedience is not only permitted, but required--to avoid doing evil--as in doing further harm to an already badly damaged Church suffering under the relentless assaults of the Pope's best buddies. Such distinctions becloud your mind and leave you mumbling.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Well, because you have become your own little pope, you think that you are entitled to establish the standards by which "insults" are judged.

Catholicguy called you a "son of Satan". It is a venerable phrase thrown at schismatics and heretics, the first recorded use by a great saint of the Catholic Church, nearly two thousand years ago.

But Catholicguy is more of a saint than I am, so I don't call anyone "sons of Satan". Just not my style.

As to your heart being darkened, I'm not calling you names, I'm observing what is apparent in your postings. That you feel so injured by it tells me that I'm not far off in my observation.

Your postings are full of bile and bitterness, and hatred for the Holy Father and the Holy Catholic Church in communion with him. You attack the Church and the pope at every turn.

I have no malice toward you, ultima. Some irritation in that you have kept me up long past my bedtime. ;-)

I have pity for you.

And I will remember to pray for you again, tomorrow.

Good night.


sitetest

PS - I really was disappointed that you aren't going to pray for me.

[ultima ratio]

I do not say you lie when you say you will pray for me, but I question why you advertize the fact and tell the world about it.

[Catholicguy]

<> LOL I agree with you there. Besides, Barbarella isn't nearly as sexy or intelligent as, say, Brigitte Bardot, circa 1962 :)<>

[Catholicguy]

<> :) Talk about coincidences. I am part Algonquin (and Irish). I think that accounts for my poor portfolio and as for Manhattan - they are welcome to it:)