Bishop Fulton Sheen

[Michael_C]

I find that Bishop Fulton Sheen is highly respected by the people I know that belong to the SSPX. In an effort to find common ground can anyone tell me what Bishop Fulton Sheen had to say about the Pauline Mass and Vatican II.My intent is to try and find what can help bring us together.

 

[Mordocai]

I would imagine Bishop Sheen was loyal to the Church and the Council’s decrees. He probably supported the Novus Ordo (said reverantly and the way it ought to be, that is)
But I don’t know for sure. Anyone know?

 

[bear06]

Interestingly enough, I googled and came up with this from the SSPX site. Wish I had found that earlier.

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

sspx.ca/Angelus/1978_November/Letters.htm

 

[devotus]

Interestingly enough, I googled and came up with this from the SSPX site. Wish I had found that earlier.

sspx.ca/Angelus/1978_November/Letters.htm

The date on this is 1978???

This makes no sense as it was 1988 that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated and before then the SSPX was in good standing

Am i missing something?

 

[bear06]

The date on this is 1978???

This makes no sense as it was 1988 that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated and before then the SSPX was in good standing

Am i missing something?

I think they were already supressed at that point. I’ll check on it for you. I noticed that too.

 

[bear06]

Yes, they were supressed in 1975. They didn’t suddenly become at odds with the Magisterium in 1988. They were long before the ordinations. That said, the formal declaration didn’t come until 1988. Apprently, Fulton Sheen saw what was coming.
You can read a more of their history here.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

he supression of the SSPX is a little off topic though. I only posted the letter with respects to the Novus Ordo.

 

[devotus]

I think they were already supressed at that point. I’ll check on it for you. I noticed that too.

Thanks … i assumed SSPX was “ok” before 1988

 

[Ham1]

I think the good Bishop saw the path that they had chosen was not united to Rome. At that point, Lefebvre had already gotten into hot water for ordaining priests despite his order being supressed.

Interesting that he calls them a “schismatical sect.”

 

[stevusmagnus]

Rome considered the Society suppressed on May 6, 1975.

The Society disputes the suppression as not having followed the provisions of Canon Law.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm

 

[stevusmagnus]

This was the response posted in that same letters section…

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?

1. (“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.

 

[stevusmagnus]

1. (“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

 

[Chatter163]

Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis after his illicit ordinations of priests on 29 June 1976. He remained under this suspension until 2 July 1988, at which time he was excommunicated in light of the episcopal consecrations.

 

[Genesis315]

Back to the OP, I recommend Sheen’s autoniography which contains chapters on Vatican II and subsequent years. He especially praised the constitution, Gaudium et Spes, which the SSPX really doesn’t like.

Essentially, Sheen said the subsequent problems after the Council were because when there is a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, there is often an increase in demonic activity attempting to counter it. He cites previous examples of this phenomenon.

It also bears pointing out that even before the Council Sheen supported people of different religions finding common ground, peacefully co-existing, and working together for common ends–things the SSPX seems to be passionately opposed to.

I think one reason American SSPX supporters love Sheen so much is that he was the face of 1950s American Catholicism, a kind of golden era they see themselves as re-establishing.

 

[maurin]

Back to the OP, I recommend Sheen’s autoniography which contains chapters on Vatican II and subsequent years. He especially praised the constitution, Gaudium et Spes, which the SSPX really doesn’t like.

Essentially, Sheen said the subsequent problems after the Council were because when there is a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, there is often an increase in demonic activity attempting to counter it. He cites previous examples of this phenomenon.

It also bears pointing out that even before the Council Sheen supported people of different religions finding common ground and working together for common ends–things the SSPX doesn’t seem to be fond of.

I think one reason American SSPX supporters love Sheen so much is that he was the face of 1940s-50s American Catholicism, which they see as a kind of golden era.

although I cannot speak for all American SSPX supporters, this one’s love for him is a result of his writings and explanations of the Traditional Mass. He showed me how Communion is actually 2 way between us and Jesus.

 

[Genesis315]

although I cannot speak for all American SSPX supporters, this one’s love for him is a result of his writings and explanations of the Traditional Mass. He showed me how Communion is actually 2 way between us and Jesus.

That of course, is why everyone likes him , however, at least in their official proclamations, the SSPX usually seem very weary of compromise with Vatican II, etc. Whatever good there is in someone’s writings, if they are “tainted” then it is completely rejected. I think Sheen generally gets a pass on this for the reason I mentioned above–he was so beloved and ingrained in American Catholicism of that period (a period which is held in such high esteem by the SSPX in the US), that they don’t lambaste him like they do others with similar views of the Council, the liturgical reform, the canonical status of the SSPX, etc.

 

[redrosetea]

Bishop Sheen’s cause for canonization is being studied…I think that speaks for itself

 

[maurin]

That of course, is why everyone likes him , however, at least in their official proclamations, the SSPX usually seem very weary of compromise with Vatican II, etc. Whatever good there is in someone’s writings, if they are “tainted” then it is completely rejected. I think Sheen generally gets a pass on this for the reason I mentioned above–he was so beloved and ingrained in American Catholicism of that period (a period which is held in such high esteem by the SSPX in the US), that they don’t lambaste him like they do others with similar views of the Council, the liturgical reform, the canonical status of the SSPX, etc.

I know that when I first went to their publishing arm’s website, Angelus Press, I was a bit surprised to see 1 or 2 of the authors listed for sale.

I’ve also noticed a small amount of softening of the rhetoric being used–remember, I assist at their Masses, so we receive handouts on a weekly basis. I think some people would be surprised to learn that there has been no “bashing” of the Novus Ordo in these leaflets, and literally none from the ambo.

My hope is that headway is being made for a normalization of status.

Any way, back on topic, Fulton Sheen is praised on the District of Asia’s website, and mention is made toward the end of his bio that he seemed to have made a turnabout after 1969. It is hinted at, though, that he may have been “pressured” into this. I don’t know if that is true or not, and since painfully little support of that was given, I would tend not to give it too much credence.