Fulton Sheen on Novus Ordo, SSPX?
#21
(10-23-2010, 09:47 AM)karyn_anne Wrote: agree. that site seems to be filled with little more than sensationalist junk blown up about 50 times

No it doesn't seem to be that.  They document everything they place on their site.  It may be disappointing what's up there but it's true.  TIA does a good service in that they keep trads from becoming trad versions of the "John Paul the Great" crowds. 

Bishop Sheen was great.  Not perfect.  And TIA as far as I know hasn't even gotten into Sheen's alleged false second doctoral degree.
Reply
#22
(10-23-2010, 03:00 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-22-2010, 04:01 PM)Gerard Wrote: People have to remember that Bishop Sheen was 70 years old at the close of the Council.  Prior to that, he was the model of what Vatican II could have been, had the modernists not done their work so well.  Sheen wound up preaching the basics in his final years during the worst of the collapse.  And he was going from school to school. 

I often wonder how God places his soldiers to do what He needs them to do for His plans.  I've often found Sheen and LeFebvre interestingly positioned.  It's a shame that I believe Sheen did not understand where LeFebvre (10 years younger than he was driving at.)  LeFebvre had been protected and preserved in his faith for 30 years in Africa.  Sheen was in the center of the storm as it developed and happened. And I believe the false image of the Church was too close to Sheen's orthodox image of what the Church was for Sheen to notice the modernism until he'd witnessed the obvious loss of faith among the people. 

Sheen's latter day lectures are expressive of  a  incredible rage he felt at the fragmentation of the faith.  In the 1950's and prior he never would explode in indignation in the way he did in his late 70's and early 80's.   

Sheen was a great man who fought great battles and took great injury when he was caught by suprise in the post Vatican II onslought.  But his legacy is good and he's still a good bridge that can be used to teach the faith and bring people in. 

I can't imagine a 20th century Church without both Sheen and LeFebvre.  Sheen's example  can bring people in, LeFebvre's  can make people stay and hold on in the crisis. 

I was always troubled by his sanguine view of Vatican II, and just shrugged my shoulders and chalked it up to bad judgment.  So much else he did was so positive, and he was always and everywhere an enemy of them...

Even Dietrich von Hildebrand had an initially positive view of VII. Note the difference in his tone between Trojan Horse in the City of God and The Devastated Vineyard. I think Bishop Sheen would have taken a similar position had he lived longer.

As to his opinions of JPII, early in his pontificate, there were many others who would have sad likewise. Amerio's Iota Unum compliments JPII multiple times on his reiteration of traditional Catholic teaching against the chaos of Paul VI's reign. Granted, the book came out in 1985 or so.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)