Bishop Sheen and Vatican 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pious_Mat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pious_Mat

Guest
One of my great heros is Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. As what some might call a “traditional” Catholic, I strive to be like Bishop through loving the EF of the Mass, and yet embracing the Second Vatican Council (what it really means, that is).

Yet, I really don’t know much about what Bishoop Sheen thought about Vatican 2’s implementation and the New Mass. During one episode of The Fulton Sheen Program from around 1967, he gave a talk about his memories of John XXIII, and in principle seemed to embrace everything that was done during Vatican 2. However, he was known as a great defender of the faith, and of course was deeply attached to the Church’s ceremonies and traditions (after all, nobody ever saw him in public without a Ferraiuolo or a Mozzetta).

I was wondering if anyone had any quotes or articles about his opinions of the Council’s results, the liturgical abuses that existed in the 1970s during his retirement, and what he thought of the New Mass, and whether he ever celebrated it (since he was 74 in 1969, he wouldn’t have been required to). Everything on the Internet and TV seem to reflect on his views on pre-conciliar days, and the Old Mass.

Thanks, Mat.
 
Pious_Mat said:
One of my great heros is Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. As what some might call a “traditional” Catholic, I strive to be like Bishop through loving the EF of the Mass, and yet embracing the Second Vatican Council (what it really means, that is).

Yet, I really don’t know much about what Bishoop Sheen thought about Vatican 2’s implementation and the New Mass. During one episode of The Fulton Sheen Program from around 1967, he gave a talk about his memories of John XXIII, and in principle seemed to embrace everything that was done during Vatican 2. However, he was known as a great defender of the faith, and of course was deeply attached to the Church’s ceremonies and traditions (after all, nobody ever saw him in public without a Ferraiuolo or a Mozzetta).

I was wondering if anyone had any quotes or articles about his opinions of the Council’s results, the liturgical abuses that existed in the 1970s during his retirement, and what he thought of the New Mass, and whether he ever celebrated it (since he was 74 in 1969, he wouldn’t have been required to). Everything on the Internet and TV seem to reflect on his views on pre-conciliar days, and the Old Mass.

Thanks, Mat.
Click to expand...
I have seen Bishop Sheen on video celebrating the New Mass and I don’t know of any evidence that he rejected Vatican II.

There is some evidence that the bishop recognized that there was a crisis in the church, if certain comments attributed to him are accurate. He is supposed to have said words to the effect that the laity would need to save the church, and that children going to certain Catholic schools risked losing their faith. I have no idea how accurately he has been quoted.
 
jj2011 said:
I have seen Bishop Sheen on video celebrating the New Mass and I don’t know of any evidence that he rejected Vatican II.

There is some evidence that the bishop recognized that there was a crisis in the church, if certain comments attributed to him are accurate. He is supposed to have said words to the effect that the laity would need to save the church, and that children going to certain Catholic schools risked losing their faith. I have no idea how accurately he has been quoted.
Click to expand...
I do recall the Archbishop saying that if he had to send children to a school (college?) that he would send them to a secular school so they would have to learn to fight for their faith rather than a Catholic one where they would have it taken from them (such was his opinion of most Catholic schools). I think the comment was made after the Council.
 
I get the feeling that Vatican 2 is written here like there was a problem with it…:confused:
 
catholicleague.org/research/fultonsheen.htm
Click to expand...
Bishop Sheen had been an active participant in the Vatican II sessions in Rome and thoroughly endorsed the reforms that followed. He tried to make his diocese the bridge between the old and new Catholicism, enacting sweeping reforms and making headlines in the process. Without administrative skills, Sheen alienated many in Rochester, and in 1969 he resigned and returned to New York.
Click to expand...
 
I hope somebody will correct me if I am wrong. But from my memories at the time and comments from people there, I do not believe Bishop Sheen ever spoke even once at the Council. I was told by a priest who knew him that Cardinal Spellman had forbidden him to speak.
 
Shoshana said:
I get the feeling that Vatican 2 is written here like there was a problem with it…:confused:
Click to expand...
Didn’t you read the part where I said I embrace the Second Vatican Council?

Before people begin criticizing the Traditional Catholicism Forum and its members, I suggest they check their prejudices and presumptions at the door.

Back on topic: One thing that I always found strange was that despite his fame, Archbishop Sheen is rarely videotaped or photographed saying Mass. I have found one photo of him saying a Low Mass, and also have heard a story of him celebrating a Divine Liturgy in English (quite to the chagrin of a few Eparchs 😉 )

But I don’t have any photos of him celebrating the New Mass. Let me say that I am not looking for a dissenting or Traditional streak in the Archbishop. I’m just curious about how he would have celebrated the New Mass. All in English, or with some Latin? Ad populum, or Ad Orientum? Organs and choirs, or guitars and tambourines?

I want to know how one of my heroes approached it, so that, should I become a priest as planned, I can have a greater insight into how the OF has been approached by great Catholic clergymen.

I’m also wondering if Sheen was fully aware of all the abuses that were going on at the time of his death in 1979, and how he would have reacted to them.

Just clarifying, and thanks to everyone who’s replied so far,

Mat.
 
Bishop Sheen was brilliant, by all accounts did a lot of good, but was also something of an enigma. It is said that he opposed the Vietnam War-- very unusual for an anti-communist of his reputation.

His early work has been popularized by certain conservative Catholics. I’m afraid, however, that when I saw him celebrating the NOM it was in the standard, horrible manner. To depict Sheen as a traditionalist, in the sense that we use the term here, would be to make him something that he was not. Still, I would love it if anybody could come up with some information to prove me wrong.
 
I cut and saved the following from a thread on the SSPX a while back. While it (SSPX) is not the current topic here, the letter gives a look into Bishop Sheen’s thoughts on the change in liturgy from V2: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…

…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…
From what I have read about Bishop Sheen, even if he detested V2 (and there is no reason to believe he did), you would never see anything of it in print (just as I have not seen anything negative of his in writing about Cardinal Spellman). Sheen was obedient to his Bishop and the Church and knew that as a very public figure, all of his words would be discussed and disected. I don’t believe he wanted to give anyone a reason to question or leave the faith.
 
The question for me is; which language is most helpful, latin or the vernacular, when full participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the desired goal?

Bishop Sheen has quoted Thomas Aquinas in matters of faith and goodness many times. I like this one, heard yesterday on EWTN. “People come by faith thru REASON. It is never the other way around.” And the bishop said this; "Always begin a persuasive argument on a positive, noting the good in the other’s account. I would like to try that here.

I remember the Mass changes clearly. I was a sailor stationed on Okinawa and at times assisted the chaplain in setting up and serving for father. I had heard vague references to “big changes coming to your local chapel”, and we are going to pray the mass in english". Then one day, while I was setting up, father entered the chapel and said; “hold everything Bob. I have a letter from the military ordinariate’s office”. Things happened rapidly and have never been the same for me since. Well, the Military Ordinariate is our chaplain’s bishop, and so it was given to us as a mandate.

You all know these changes, so I will not list them. Even so, I have never spoken latin at mass since 1962.

The consistency of it all for an english speaker is a good thing. My comfort level for english and the other changes that ultimately came down the pike came very quickly. Consequently, for many years I had been happy. There were things reported in some venues that made me uncomfortable. The good people here and others would certainly call these abuses. I am tempted to describe the guitar playing and folk singing of new songs, and mass on the beach, but I am lengthy here already and that problem does not answer my question; which is better, latin or the vernacular?

So far it would appear that change is good and mass in english has served me to participate more fully. Well there has been a pull in the opposite direction. As I have matured down through the years, I have been exposed to bits and pieces of the “old way”. Recently, with commentary of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter regarding the tridentine mass, I learned that we were taken advantage of in several areas.
  1. The “new way” of saying mass was never mandated. People have had a choice in the matter all along. This really hurt me since now I feel cheated. The latin is missed and the mystery of the celebration, as our priests would face the tabernacle and the crucifix and really prayed to someone. I hate it when the priest stares off into space, trying to visualize the invisible. They are uncomfortable I think, and I am uncomfortable. The opposite would be true. Looking at the Divine Sacrificial Lamb on the cross of our salvation and having the tabernacle representing the Torah within touching distance makes it easy to get into the true spirit of the last supper.
  2. Latin or no: If I could recount another recent experience to make my point about the benefits of saying the mass in latin. Sunday I attended, in honor of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, a spanish aspeaking mass. These celebrations are always lively, singing is beautiful and the costumes are striking in their color. But, my friends, I do not speak spanish at all. Maybe I need to learn the language. At least get familiar with some conversational phrases.
I had an epiphaney Sunday

The mass, said in the vernacular, is not a good thing. This change, said to be a uniter has been a divider of Christians. To this day our catholic people who, world wide, are the body of Christ, have been mortally divided by language. Language is a spin off from Adam’s sin. The miracles that would happen in our world if Christians were united around the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would astound! This would bring the coming of God’s Kingdom. Defeating once for all Satan and his minions. I will end this thesis considering how unity will be attained.

It is so simple for me. I know it is the primary solution, an answer, sitting right in front of me, that is missed. WE MUST RETURN SOON TO THE TRIDENTINE MASS. Latin is the thing that will unite us. As I sat in the spanish mass, not understanding, divided from the Latino community, divided from God in a way, really disturbed, the words came to me. Bishop Sheen has said; "faith never comes first. Faith requires reason. Thinking and understanding must be present before salvation. Here is the bottom line. We must come to Faith and the Holy Eucharist together, understanding our mutual gift of love. God is a big thinker. His “coming together in faith” encompasses all people acting and praying together. I can never learn 115 different languages, or however many there are. I can come to all my Christian brothers in learning, thinking and understanding the latin of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular…Moreover, the change in translation does not alter the meaning of the text.
Click to expand...
I must say that this letter of the late bishop is beneath his legendary intellect, and astonishing for how badly it misses the mark. To take it at face value, one would think that the changes consisted of nothing more than translating the Latin into the vernacular of a Maryknoll missal.

I suspect that if the bishop were alive today, this would be one letter he’d like to have back. He’d probably be supporting the hermeneutic of continuity. Too many Catholics are now on to the seventies party line, which the letter cited all too faithfully reflects.
 
I haven’t read any comments regarding Archbishop Sheen and Vatican II or the NO, but I do remember him saying something about the “charismatic renewal” and absurdity.
 
Re: Bishop Sheen and Vatican II – I think he speaks of his participation in the Council in his autobiography Treasure in Clay. From that autobiography, and relatively well known, is his mention of his admiration of the council document Gaudium et Spes.

Re: Bishop Sheen and Mass – jj201 you mentioned seeing Bishop Sheen celebrate mass. Could you expand on that more for us? It sounds very interesting.

VC
 
jj2011 said:
I must say that this letter of the late bishop is beneath his legendary intellect, and astonishing for how badly it misses the mark. To take it at face value, one would think that the changes consisted of nothing more than translating the Latin into the vernacular of a Maryknoll missal.

I suspect that if the bishop were alive today, this would be one letter he’d like to have back. He’d probably be supporting the hermeneutic of continuity. Too many Catholics are now on to the seventies party line, which the letter cited all too faithfully reflects.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget that Bishop Sheen was born in 1895. He was 70 by the time Vatican II ended. 80 by the time the Novus Ordo was implemented.

Listen to his talks from the 1970’s. He’s very tired and very frustrated and obviously slowing down. You can hear him losing his temper in some of them when dealing with feminism and all of the various attacks on the Church. His weakness due to age betrayed his frustration with the times.

He died in 1979 at the age of 84. I’m sure he didn’t anticipate or believe that things would slide much further than they did. I’m speculating but maybe he hoped or thought that JPI or JPII would clean up the mess left behind by Paul VI.
 
RSulli said:
The question for me is; which language is most helpful, latin or the vernacular, when full participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the desired goal?

Bishop Sheen has quoted Thomas Aquinas in matters of faith and goodness many times. I like this one, heard yesterday on EWTN. “People come by faith thru REASON. It is never the other way around.” And the bishop said this; "Always begin a persuasive argument on a positive, noting the good in the other’s account. I would like to try that here.

I remember the Mass changes clearly. I was a sailor stationed on Okinawa and at times assisted the chaplain in setting up and serving for father. I had heard vague references to “big changes coming to your local chapel”, and we are going to pray the mass in english". Then one day, while I was setting up, father entered the chapel and said; “hold everything Bob. I have a letter from the military ordinariate’s office”. Things happened rapidly and have never been the same for me since. Well, the Military Ordinariate is our chaplain’s bishop, and so it was given to us as a mandate.

You all know these changes, so I will not list them. Even so, I have never spoken latin at mass since 1962.

The consistency of it all for an english speaker is a good thing. My comfort level for english and the other changes that ultimately came down the pike came very quickly. Consequently, for many years I had been happy. There were things reported in some venues that made me uncomfortable. The good people here and others would certainly call these abuses. I am tempted to describe the guitar playing and folk singing of new songs, and mass on the beach, but I am lengthy here already and that problem does not answer my question; which is better, latin or the vernacular?

So far it would appear that change is good and mass in english has served me to participate more fully. Well there has been a pull in the opposite direction. As I have matured down through the years, I have been exposed to bits and pieces of the “old way”. Recently, with commentary of Pope Benedict XVI’s letter regarding the tridentine mass, I learned that we were taken advantage of in several areas.
  1. The “new way” of saying mass was never mandated. People have had a choice in the matter all along. This really hurt me since now I feel cheated. The latin is missed and the mystery of the celebration, as our priests would face the tabernacle and the crucifix and really prayed to someone. I hate it when the priest stares off into space, trying to visualize the invisible. They are uncomfortable I think, and I am uncomfortable. The opposite would be true. Looking at the Divine Sacrificial Lamb on the cross of our salvation and having the tabernacle representing the Torah within touching distance makes it easy to get into the true spirit of the last supper.
  2. Latin or no: If I could recount another recent experience to make my point about the benefits of saying the mass in latin. Sunday I attended, in honor of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, a spanish aspeaking mass. These celebrations are always lively, singing is beautiful and the costumes are striking in their color. But, my friends, I do not speak spanish at all. Maybe I need to learn the language. At least get familiar with some conversational phrases.
I had an epiphaney Sunday

The mass, said in the vernacular, is not a good thing. This change, said to be a uniter has been a divider of Christians. To this day our catholic people who, world wide, are the body of Christ, have been mortally divided by language. Language is a spin off from Adam’s sin. The miracles that would happen in our world if Christians were united around the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would astound! This would bring the coming of God’s Kingdom. Defeating once for all Satan and his minions. I will end this thesis considering how unity will be attained.

It is so simple for me. I know it is the primary solution, an answer, sitting right in front of me, that is missed. WE MUST RETURN SOON TO THE TRIDENTINE MASS. Latin is the thing that will unite us. As I sat in the spanish mass, not understanding, divided from the Latino community, divided from God in a way, really disturbed, the words came to me. Bishop Sheen has said; "faith never comes first. Faith requires reason. Thinking and understanding must be present before salvation. Here is the bottom line. We must come to Faith and the Holy Eucharist together, understanding our mutual gift of love. God is a big thinker. His “coming together in faith” encompasses all people acting and praying together. I can never learn 115 different languages, or however many there are. I can come to all my Christian brothers in learning, thinking and understanding the latin of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Yet, the East has little of the kinds of problems that the Latin Church has and it has retained the vernacular (for the most part) in its Liturgies.
 
GerardP said:
Let’s not forget that Bishop Sheen was born in 1895. He was 70 by the time Vatican II ended. 80 by the time the Novus Ordo was implemented.

Listen to his talks from the 1970’s. He’s very tired and very frustrated and obviously slowing down. You can hear him losing his temper in some of them when dealing with feminism and all of the various attacks on the Church. His weakness due to age betrayed his frustration with the times.

He died in 1979 at the age of 84. I’m sure he didn’t anticipate or believe that things would slide much further than they did. I’m speculating but maybe he hoped or thought that JPI or JPII would clean up the mess left behind by Paul VI.
Click to expand...
That’s true, and I found his frustrations and frailty especially evident in his later speeches, but his final Good Friday homily certainly seemed to bring back some of the young Bishop Sheen.

And “the Hermeneutic of continuity” is basically the organic development of the liturgy. The philosophy is best embodied by the new liturgical movement website.
 
Pious_Mat said:
Didn’t you read the part where I said I embrace the Second Vatican Council? …
…
…Back on topic: One thing that I always found strange was that despite his fame, Archbishop Sheen is rarely videotaped or photographed saying Mass. I have found one photo of him saying a Low Mass, and also have heard a story of him celebrating a Divine Liturgy in English (quite to the chagrin of a few Eparchs 😉 )

But I don’t have any photos of him celebrating the New Mass. Let me say that I am not looking for a dissenting or Traditional streak in the Archbishop. I’m just curious about how he would have celebrated the New Mass. All in English, or with some Latin? Ad populum, or Ad Orientum? Organs and choirs, or guitars and tambourines?

I want to know how one of my heroes approached it, so that, should I become a priest as planned, I can have a greater insight into how the OF has been approached by great Catholic clergymen.

I’m also wondering if Sheen was fully aware of all the abuses that were going on at the time of his death in 1979, and how he would have reacted to them.

Just clarifying, and thanks to everyone who’s replied so far,

Mat.
Click to expand...
I had the opportunity to attend 3 nights’ worth of lectures given locally years ago by Bishop Sheen. It was at a church that I would consider having gone modern. Needless to say, each night - it was packed. I believe the last night Mass was said - and because I was so far back (and my memory fails me now - sorry) - I’m guessing. I DO know it was the New Mass - I’m just not sure if Bishop Sheen celebrated the Mass or concelebrated it.

One thing I do remember - I recall seeing him sitting or kneeling at the side of the main altar while Holy Communion was being administered - I’m thinking by deacons and/or women (???) as well as priests - I was so far back visibility wasn’t easy. I can only assume that the reason that Bishop Sheen didn’t give Holy Communion himself was (1) everyone would have wanted to go to him or (2) maybe his age wouldn’t allow him to stand too long (???)

Now, you’ve got my curiosity going. Did he celebrate the Mass? Concelebrate it? I’m pretty sure the talks he gave were in Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top