Letter of recantation

  • Thread starter Thread starter tom.wineman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tom.wineman

Guest
Has anybody read up on Fr. Stephen Somerville ?
He is the priest who wrote a letter of recantation
on his involvement in the translation of the "new Mass."
Where is he now and what is he doing since his letter ?
 
The last I heard he was involved with the SSPX.

Deacon Ed
 
Yes, Fr. Stephen Somerville is the priest who renounced his service on the ICEL translation.

But I would want evidence and documentation before accepting as Truth a rumor that he’s now a schismatic.

I’ll try to post his letter, but it may have too many characters to do in all in a single post.
 
An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.
Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

Posted on 11/29/2002 5:00:21 PM PST by 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.

I highlighted in red his remarks about SSPX…I did a google search and found his letter in abundance on SSPX sites, which is why I chose to copy and paste rather than simply provide a link. 😦

It seems everything I’ve found thus far points to Somerville at least sympathizing with the Society of Pius X, but I’ve found nothing “official” on it.

Pax Christi. <><
 
Panis,

You are correct. That’s why I said “involved with” rather than “a member of” the SSPX.

Deacon Ed
 
Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic,Archbishop of Toronto and the church have worked closely to get Fr. Somerville to separate himself from the SSPX over the last several months. Father Somerville refused. So, yes, I think one can now safely say Fr Somerville is with the SSPX.

Father Stephen F. Somerville was suspended by the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto on July 15, 2004. Here is the suspention letter- Truncated as it was very long and specific as to the reasons.
Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic:
Dear Father Somerville:

For the last several months, I have tried unsuccessfully to reason with you about your grave and persistent disobedience in continuing your association with and in celebrating the Eucharist for adherents to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X. Given your earlier and more recent communications with myself and with Monsignor John Murphy, Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs, it appears all our efforts to deal pastorally with your obstinacy in this matter have been in vain.

It is my understanding that you have not “formally” affiliated yourself with the Society of St. Pius X already mentioned. Such formal affiliation to that Society, whose founder’s ipso facto excommunication was declared by the Apostolic See on July 1, 1988, would, as you are probably aware, according to Canon 1364, likewise result in your own immediate de jure excommunication from the Church.

On the other hand, your ongoing association with and celebration of the Tridentine Mass for members of the Society of St. Pius X give external recognition to their illegitimate claims and their lack of submission to our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, to Bishops appointed by him, and to the teachings of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

In light of all the foregoing, with due observance of Canon 1342, 1, and Canons 1717-1720:

-Given your flagrant disregard for my previous warnings to cease and desist from your disobedient behaviour (fc. Canons 1330; 1347. 1);

-Given the existence of the condition for grave imputability of your actions (cf. Canon 1321);

-Given the absence of extenuating circumstances (cf. Canons 1322-1324);

-I hereby decree, in your regard, the imposition of the censure of suspension as laid down in Cannon 1333, 1, 1-3. That is, as of this 15th day of July 2004, you no longer enjoy the faculties of the Archdiocese. To wit, you are prohibited all public and private acts of the power of Order and of the power of governance. Namely, you are forbidden to celebrate, either publicly or privately, any of the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (this latter, outside the danger of death of a penitent [cf. Canon 1335]) You are likewise forbidden the faculty to preach or to celebrate publicly the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Word. Thus, this censure of suspension is global (cf. Canon 1334, 1).

This censure does not prevent you from receiving the sacraments in the churches of the Archdiocese provided you are otherwise well-disposed. It does prevent you from offering the sacraments to members of the faithful of our Archdiocese and elsewhere, even to those legitimately asking, the sole exception being the absolution of a penitent in danger of death (cf. Canons 976 &1335).

This censure of suspension is personal, that is, in keeping with Canon 1351, binds you not only within the territory of the Archdiocese of Toronto, but everywhere in the world.

With the assurance of my prayers, I remain

Yours in Christ

Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic

Archbishop of Toronto
Click to expand...
 
Yes it was because of his association wtih the SSPX and not because of the ICEL letter that resulted in his suspension.

He received several warnings in advance from both the Bishop and chose not to be obedient. What choice did the Bishop have then but to follow through with this.

I do not agree with the commentary or insuations presented in this Remnant piece but it does contain the contents of all the letters leading to this if you choose to read them at

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/somer.htm

This link shows correctly in draft format but it leaves out the word rem and substitutes … when I post it so you may have to type in the address manually using the correct nomenclature.
 
I didn’t save the article 😦 but it said that Mel Gibson had him saying a Tridentine Mass in the morning while shooting the Passion.
 
tom.wineman said:
I didn’t save the article 😦 but it said that Mel Gibson had him saying a Tridentine Mass in the morning while shooting the Passion.
Click to expand...

and…what’s the point - It is know that the Tridentine Mass was celebrated each mornin before shooting and that most of the cast and crew attended - the shooting was in a small town in Italy, took a long time and I suppose this priest could have had a long leave of absence to celebrate it. Nonetheless I still don’t see the pont of that having anything to do with his suspension.
 
40.png
deogratias:
I do not agree with the commentary or insuations presented in this Remnant piece…
Click to expand...
I actually found it rather refreshing, in a “pull-no-punches” kind of way. The comment that struck me the most (albeit it is a gross generalization) was “Here we are in the midst of the worst priest/sex scandal in history, and who gets suspended?” Obviously someone should tell the author his hyperbole is showing, but I think it’s a valid observation anyway.

Also, why is association with (not necessarily total agreement with or membership in) the SSPX a “red flag” for so many people? As someone who has only recently begun reading about them, the only thing I can see wrong with them is the lack of obedience on the point of the ordinations in 1998, not any of their other practices. Would “sspx” cease to be a prejorative term if this canonical excommunication were lifted?
Code: 
Just curious!
 
Would “sspx” cease to be a prejorative term if this canonical excommunication were lifted
Click to expand...
Yes but you must look at the reasons there can be no agreement to date for lifting it. While there would be no obligation for the SSPX priests to celebrate the normative Mass, they would have to accept it is valid and they do not. They would have to accept the validity of Vatican II also.

This was the option and those SSPX preists who accepted that are now what we know as the FFSP - it isn’t just about the Mass you see because they both celebrate the same Mass in the same manner.
 
aaron, your sig has me rotfl. :rotfl:

I guess sspx is kinda like a quagmire…it seems appealing, until you watch your friends get sucked into it.

After a while, they begin spouting off against the Holy Father, and you realize they’re lost. 😦
 
The Dead Bishop:
By their fruits, you shall know them.
Click to expand...
Now, I honestly have to think really hard whether this comment is intended to condemn the sspx or not…

Looking at the state of the Post Conciliar Church, in terms of Mass attendance, belief in the Real Presence, the lack of vocations, the homosexual-priest abuse scandals…

Whose “fruits” are you referring to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top