Author Topic: Bishop Sheen - Did he Go along and die a Heretic ? (Read 3326 times)

Binechi · « **on:** June 17, 2016, 03:07:32 PM »

Bishop Fulton Sheen Was Well Known on Radio and Television
As a Catholic Evangelist and Author
But, Like So Many Catholic Bishops, Sheen Fell away from the Catholic Faith
At the Vatican II Anti-council of 1962-1965
Sheen Lived to Regret His Sellout to Modernism and Tried to Correct It
But It Was Too Late: Newchurch Lost the True Mass and Priesthood in 1968-69
Sheen Died a Broken Man in 1979, Stung with Many Regrets for His Infidelity

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1606.htm

Lighthouse · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2016, 06:25:16 PM »

Mindless blather. I've seen some awful things ascribed to Bishop Sheen, and, perhaps, they are all true, but I don't see much being offered as citation or proof.

And are we really supposed to accept Cardinal Spellman as a champion of orthodoxy?

Why would Sheen die a broken man if he repented?

jen51 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2016, 07:45:39 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

Why would Sheen die a broken man if he repented?

Exactly.

I've been listening to him on Youtube this week and have been very edified by many of his remarks on family life, and in particular his love and devotion to Our Lady.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2016, 07:50:05 PM »

How Bishop Fulton J. Sheen ended his life is shrouded in silence, for whatever reason. It would seem he could easily have written a book in retrospect before he died, but he would have had to seek out some way of getting into sympathetic hands without his overseers finding out about it.

A woman said she met him on a public train shortly before he died, and he was not looking well. She related that Sheen had told her that he regretted going along with the popular revolution at Vat.II and its aftermath, and that he wished he had held on to precious traditions that had been set aside, including the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments. But the spirit of revolution was very strong and he had been swept away like so many others, and now (then) it was too late for him to do anything about it.

He had once been the foremost spokesman for the Church in America with his popular TV show, but after the revolution dug in, he had lost his place of prominence, and no longer was recognized by the new generation of so-called Catholics. He had no way of getting his message out and the revolution certainly did not want him to contradict any of its principles.

Meg · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2016, 08:28:31 AM »

When I attended an SSPX chapel, I checked out a video (or maybe it was a cassette) from the library there of one of Bp. Sheen's programs, and it was about his support for the Vll Council. If I recall correctly, he thought it was a good thing that non-Catholics were allowed to attend it. He was supportive of the Council, but he also said that he had a few concerns, but didn't express what the concerns were. I was quite surprised to hear his support for the Council. Did he also support the New Mass, does anyone know? I think that he must have.

qeddeq · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2016, 11:55:45 AM »

Quote from: Meg

When I attended an SSPX chapel, I checked out a video (or maybe it was a cassette) from the library there of one of Bp. Sheen's programs, and it was about his support for the Vll Council. If I recall correctly, he thought it was a good thing that non-Catholics were allowed to attend it. He was supportive of the Council, but he also said that he had a few concerns, but didn't express what the concerns were. I was quite surprised to hear his support for the Council. Did he also support the New Mass, does anyone know? I think that he must have.

how is it surprising? Sheen was bandwagoning. He was this big respected figure in the true church, the church changed and he didn't want to get left out of the popularity contest of which he was so fond. It's possible that he had no principles at all but went with the party line whatever it happened to be. Proof of that is his support for vatican 2. He had no steadfast adherence to catholic teaching. If he had he would've rebelled against the heresy, like others did. You don't hear about those people much, because they just quietly went along being catholics.

Oatmeal · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2016, 06:51:41 PM »

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2054-a-1978-reply-to-archbishop-sheen-s-comments-on-the-sspx

Recently, anti-SSPX apologists have re-published what is reported to be a private 1978 letter from Archbishop Fulton Sheen advising against affiliation with the SSPX.

As luck would have it, this letter did not go unnoticed in SSPX circles at the time. Dr. Eugene McKenzie, a reader of The Angelus (the SSPX’s official magazine), saw the Archbishop’s letter and decided to write the Archbishop in reply.

Dr. McKenzie then sent his reply to the Angelus’ editor, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, who decided to publish it. What follows is the text of Dr. McKenzie’s letter to Fr. Pulvermacher from 1978. Its contents are as true today as they were then:

Dear Father Carl:

Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter sent recently to a housewife who lives near Topeka, from Bishop Fulton Sheen. You will note the effort encourages one Mrs. Rew to continue her efforts to draw away from our congregation in St. Mary's at the St. Pius X Chapel, her friend and one of our people. I couldn't resist answering the good Bishop. I do not know if your policies allow printing this material but if you wish that is fine.

Respectfully,

Dr. Eugene F. McKenzie

September 21, 1978

Dear Barbara:

I thank you for your kind letter and I admire you as the mother of eight small children. I am sure you are busy, but happy.

If you have any influence on your friend I would beg you to influence her to leave the so-called Society of Saint Pius X. This group has no ecclesiastical approval, and indeed, it can lead her and possibly her family into schism and even heresy.

The Vatican Council approved the updating of the Liturgy and amongst the changes were those recommended for the Mass. The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular. There have been many changes in the Mass down through the centuries.

The Lord never said Mass in Latin; He used the language of the time. Moreover, the change in translation does not alter the meaning of the text. I am always looking for translations that make the Scriptures more understandable and clear.

Since I never write to anyone unless they have written to me I shall not write to Mrs. Richardon. I beg of you to tell her that she should withdraw from that schismatical sect as soon as possible, or suffer the consequence of possibly finding herself outside the Church.

God love you!

+ Fulton J. Sheen

cathman7 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2016, 09:00:43 PM »

I wish I could post a conference an SSPX priest gave on Archbishop Sheen...ah well.

The letter +Sheen sent to that lady is rather surprising to a degree. What do I mean? +Sheen should have known that the Reform of the Liturgy in 1969/70 was not a mere translation of the Mass into the vernacular - that was an absurd statement.

Also, +Sheen during the 60s and 70s was known for his ecuмenical outreach to the Protestants. He even recommended Protestant biblical studies at the seminary when he was the Diocesan bishop in Rochester (a rather short-lived episode in his life and quite disastrous). His mind was not clear at all a year before his death. Even in the 60s he praised the thinking of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ.

I have listened to a great deal of his sermons & conferences and have actually profited from them. However, he was, like most bishops, unable to see the Revolution for what it was - an overturning of the principles of Catholic thought.

Geremia · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2016, 09:33:55 PM »

Quote from: Abp. Sheen (allegedly)

The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular.

That's not true. Many things that were deemed either offensive to Protestants or to "modern man" were suppressed, as Fr. Cekada docuмents in Work of Human Hands. It's a fact that the Novus Ordo makes far less mention of the four last things, for example.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2016, 01:12:15 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Abp. Sheen (allegedly)
The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular.

That's not true. Many things that were deemed either offensive to Protestants or to "modern man" were suppressed, as Fr. Cekada docuмents in Work of Human Hands. It's a fact that the Novus Ordo makes far less mention of the four last things, for example.

I agree: the quoted statement is false.

The changes made by Paul VI were far more than translation. He concocted an entirely new religion! The Traditional Latin Mass was effectively suppressed, something that Pope St. Pius V attempted to prohibit "in perpetuity" with Quo Primum.

He squelched longstanding traditions in the Roman Rite to such a degree that the world's bishops were confused about what to do. At one point, a group of them got together and wrote to the the Vatican regarding what specific rubrics should be used in a particular ceremony where the bishop incenses the altar, because previously the rubrics had always been very specific and clear with no wiggle room for any innovation. The reply from Rome was most instructive, when they said that the bishops could use any rubrics they wanted, just be sure they don't use the old rubrics! If that isn't a deliberate and arbitrary break with Tradition, I don't know what is!

One of the major criticisms of the Newmass is how it suppresses the doctrine of SACRIFICE from beginning to end. This could only be to appease the Protestants, who consider the Mass to be no sacrifice at all, but merely a memorial MEAL, like a party, you know.

.