Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fulton Sheen  (Read 611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Reputation: +10/-0
  • Gender: Female
Fulton Sheen
« on: December 04, 2013, 07:34:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Lord grant us many holy and alert priests


    Yours in Christ

    Kate Jackson


    RIP: Dr. Eugene F. McKenzie

    He was the local dentist who defended Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX
    against Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen in 1978 the year before Archbishop
    Sheen's death in December 1979. Father Carl Pulvermacher published the
    letters in the Angelus in November 1978.

    May God rest his soul.

    http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=128

    EDITOR'S NOTE: The following three letters addressed to Father Carl
    Pulvermacher, a lady named Barbara and to Bishop Fulton Sheen were sent to
    us by Dr. EuGene McKenzie.

    *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

    *September 30, 1978*

    *Most Reverend Fulton J. Sheen *Titular Archbishop of Newport

    Your Excellency:

    Enclosed find your letter recently received by a housewife in this area. I
    respond because of your sweeping condemnation of the Society of St. Pius X
    and by inference, its founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Also, your letter has
    been copied and distributed by its recipient. I will show that you have
    affixed your name to a litany of false and misleading statements. If I had
    not seen this letter I would not have believed that the famous Fulton Sheen
    could author it. Charity compels me to ask whether in fact the author was
    some untrained underling? I speak to your letter.

    1. ("THE VATICAN COUNCIL APPROVED THE� UPDATING OF THE LITURGY AND AMONGST
    THE CHANGES WERE THOSE RECOMMENDED FOR THE MASS.") The Vatican Council
    never hinted at what has become� a� revolution.� The� � Council� �
    never intended� � that� � Latin� � should be removed from the Mass. The
    Fathers (were� � you� � there?) allowed the option of the vernacular for
    some opening� � prayers. They never hinted at the possibility of altering
    the Canon nor especially the Consecration. As you know, Article 36 of the
    Constitution on the� Liturgy reads:� "The use of the Latin language shall
    be maintained (servetur) in the Latin rites."

    Why do you continue to violate this law? There is not a line in the
    Constitution on replacing our altars with tables; not a suggestion that the
    priest should face the congregation. The late English Cardinal Heenan
    testified that when the Fathers voted for the Constitution they did not
    foresee "that Latin would virtually disappear from Catholic Churches."

    The late Archbishop Dwyer writing of the euphoric spirit of the Fathers on
    the day they voted in favor of the Constitution by 2,147 to 4, comments
    with the sadness and wisdom of hindsight: "Who dreamed on that day that
    within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church
    would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory. The
    thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed for far beyond the
    realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. We laughed it off."

    One prelate, who fulfilled important functions during the Council,
    expressed himself strongly on this matter in 1969: "I regret having voted
    in favor of the Council Constitution in whose name (but in what a manner)
    this heretical pseudo-reform has been carried out, a triumph of arrogance
    and ignorance. If it were possible, I would take back my vote, and attest
    before a magistrate that my assent had been obtained through trickery."
    (Mgr. Domenico Celada)

    Finally, the Council took for granted the Bull Quo Primum which guarantees
    "in perpetuity" the right of any priest to say the Immemorial Mass
    (Tridentine) and the right of the laity to hear the same. It never even
    hinted at replacing the old Mass with the Novus Ordo��� how could it���the
    Council closed in 1965. The Novus Ordo was not promulgated until 1969! Why
    do you then illegally refuse the priests and laity of your diocese the
    right to this Mass? Please don't reply like most diocesan papers that the
    Constitution Missale Romanun issued by Paul VI to institute the Novus Ordo
    rescinds Quo Primum and thus the Tridentine Mass-that is a lie!

    If you have read the original Latin document you found it doesn't even
    mention Quo Primum but is merely a "permission" to say the Novus Ordo. The
    liberals try to make of this "permission" a binding law by "mistranslation"
    when going from the Latin to English, French, Italian and German. How does
    it happen, your Excellency, that these "experts" all made the same
    linguistic error on the fourth from last line of the document Missale
    Ro-manum? You haven't read it? Like the bishops of the nation you took the
    word of the liberal peritti Yves Congar for this?

    2. ("THE CHANGES MADE BY POPE PAUL VI WERE NOT DOCTRINAL CHANGES, THEY� �
    MERELY CHANGED FROM LATIN TO THE VERNACULAR.") This statement, and from a
    Bishop, is so unreal as to leave the reader stupified. We know that Pope
    Paul did not actually author all the radical liturgical changes which bear
    his name, but to say that this revolution was essentially linguistic in
    character, well, this is to ask not to be taken seriously.

    According to Dietrich Von Hildebrand Pope Paul's Novus Ordo "merely
    changed" 70% of the Tridentine Mass. A grand total of thirty-five prayers
    have been replaced or discarded. The contrast from the old Roman Missal
    which you compiled, to the new Missalettes, is so stark as to defy
    comparison. If your above state ment were even partly true Catholics could
    go right on attending the new Mass and use their old missals by just
    reading the English section. Try it, Bishop Sheen. It would be like going
    to see the Yankees play with a program from the Bolshoi Ballet as a guide.

    3. ("THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CHANGES IN THE MASS DOWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES.")
    No informed critic of the new Mass has ever suggested that the Missal of
    St. Pius V was untouchable or that Quo Primum precluded any reform of the
    Missal by subsequent Pontiffs. Archbishop Lefebvre has made no such claims.
    The historical evidence is there to show that up to 1969 when the Novus
    Ordo was imposed, the changes in the Mass for 1500 years were conducted
    with the utmost reverence and caution. Pope John XXIII's "reform" is
    typical of the changes which appeared only rarely. After much research and
    discussion that Pope allowed the Last Gospel to be dropped on occasion,
    altered the calendar slightly and timidly inserted the name of St. Joseph
    into the Canon. You surely know that numerous scholars of late have
    demonstrated that there is no possible comparison with what Pope Paul VI
    has permitted and the revisions of the Popes who went before him.

    The following lines are from a 1952 edition cf a book entitled This is the
    Mass: "The Mass became set much as we now know it, insofar as concerns its
    broad structure, at about the close of the third century. Although this or
    that part may show some growth or diminution in importance, the general
    plan of the ceremony is even now just as it was then."

    Those lines���that book was written by two experts on the Mass; their
    names: Henri Daniel-Rops and Fulton J. Sheen.

    You chide us for turning to the Society of St. Pius X for our Immemorial
    Mass because only these priests of Archbishop "Lefebvre have the courage to
    bring to us what you and the nation's bishops should be providing.

    You know better than I that this Novus Ordo which you defend is shockingly
    similar to the heretical rite devised by the heretic Thomas Cranmer during
    Henry VIN's time. You know that Cramer successfully devised a three-pronged
    attack to destroy the Mass and the Faith in England.

    First, he replaced the altars with tables, "Altars for that odious
    sacrifice, tables for memorial meals."

    Second, he replaced "abominable Latin" with vernacular so that later he
    could gradually mutilate the prayers.

    Third, came communion in the hand; thus in time the idea of the Real
    Presence, which he hated would be diluted.

    In exactly twenty years Cranmer crushed the Faith in England. In the last
    ten years you and the Bishops of America have reduced Mass attendance by
    one-half!

    Is the pattern similar?

    Who is leading who into "schism and even heresy"?

    A few years ago an American Bishop wrote these lines in the preface to his
    Sunday Missal of the Tridentine Mass. These words sum up the case made by
    Archbishop Lefebvre and his men:

    "There is no communion rail without an altar, For only a Sacrifice leads to
    a Sacrament."

    by Fulton J. Sheen

    Be careful great, great Bishop of the television screen, that your sharp
    pen does not become your scourge, for you may learn one day, like Paul of
    Tarsus, that in pummeling the elderly French Archbishop you had, in fact,
    struck the naked body of the Saviour.

    Respectfully,
    Dr. EuGene F. McKenzie
    Saint Marys, Kansas 66536

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16