Skip to comments.Archbishop Sheen moves closer to beatification; preliminary approval of miracle
Posted on 03/06/2014 2:10:35 PM PST by NYer
A team of Vatican-appointed medical experts has verified the authenticity of a miracle attributed to the intercession of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, moving the renowned preacher closer to beatification.
Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois, announced on March 6 that the panel of experts had found no medical explanation for the case of a child who was restored to life after being stillborn. Medical personnel had tried for an hour to revive the child, without success, while the parents prayed for the intercession of Archbishop Sheen. The child, born in September 2010, is now a healthy 3-year-old.
Today is a significant step in the cause for the beatification and canonization of our beloved Fulton Sheen, a priest of Peoria and a son of the heartland who went on to change the world, said Bishop Jenky, who had formally opened the cause for beatification of Archbishop Sheen in 2002.
The reported miracle will now be examined by a team of theologians, and if they approve it, submitted to the entire Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The final approval of the miracle would fulfill the last requirement for the beatification of Cardinal Sheen, who was proclaimed Venerable by Pope Benedict XVI in June 2012.
Born in Illinois in 1895, Fulton Sheen was ordained to the priesthood in the Peoria diocese in 1919. He taught philosophy and theology at the Catholic University of America, before becoming an auxiliary bishop of New York in 1951. His fame soared as a result of work in broadcasting; in the 1950s his weekly show, Life Is Worth Living, was the most popular program on American television. Bishop Sheen was appointed Bishop of Rochester, New York, in 1966, and raised to the title of archbishop on his retirement in 1969. He died in New York in 1979.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
Does Fulton Sheen really deserve sainthood? In 1967, he came out against the Vietnam War, doing his part to undermine our effort to prevent the South Vietnamese, many of whom were Roman Catholics, from having to live under Communism.
Hey NYER TBN spin off network Church channel still show Bishop Sheen show I think on Saturday afternoon
A good and mostly wise man, but a saint? No.
It is so easy for any one of us to slip into the role of judge and jury. For that reason, the process to sainthood is conducted independently against rigid standards and include 2 miracles, corroborated by independent medical professionals. Ultimately, God decides sainthood; not us.
This is stupid. Parents, instead of praying to GOD, who does miracles, pray to a man to ask him to pray to God. The baby lives. Instead of crediting God who gives life, they credit the man with a miracle.
If Mr. Sheen isn’t a saint at death, there is nothing that can make him one now - even falsely attributed miracles.
We shall see.
Venerable Servant of God Archbishop Sheen, Pray For Us.
Dear friend, there is nothing stupid about this. ALL credit goes to God for any miracle!! In tines of trouble, we pray with saints, not to them. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person? Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective.
If Mr. Sheen isnt a saint at death, there is nothing that can make him one now - even falsely attributed miracles.
The word saint literally means "holy," and, in the New Testament, saint referred to all who believed in Jesus Christ and followed his teachings.
Very early on, however, the meaning of the word began to change. As Christianity began to spread, it became clear that some Christians lived lives of extraordinary, or heroic, virtue. While other Christians struggled to live out the gospel of Christ, these people were eminent examples of the moral virtues, and they easily practiced the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.
The word saint thus became more narrowly applied to such people, who were venerated after their deaths as saints, usually by the members of their local church or the Christians in the region where they had lived, because they were familiar with their good deeds. Eventually, the Catholic Church created a process, called "canonization," through which such venerable people could be recognized as saints by all Christians everywhere.
Most of the saints whom we refer to by that title (for instance, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton) have gone through this process of canonization. Others, such as Saint Peter and Saint Paul, received the title through acclamation, or the universal recognition of their holiness.
Catholics believe that both types of saints (canonized and acclaimed) are already in Heaven, which is why one of the requirements for the canonization process is proof of miracles performed by the possible saint after his death. Canonized saints can be venerated anywhere and prayed to publicly, and their lives are held up to Christians still struggling here on earth as examples to be imitated.
Archbishop Sheen was truly ahead of his time when it came to communications. I think I have read that he received an Emmy Award for his tv show and thanked the four Gospel writers.
“Dear friend, there is nothing stupid about this.”
Actually, there is lots wrong with this.
“ALL credit goes to God for any miracle!!”
Actually, the article credits Sheen. Even worse, it credits him to indicate he was a saint. No miracles are required by God. Every Christian is called a saint by Him.
“In times of trouble, we pray with saints, not to them. Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time?”
Yes, I certainly do. They can hear me.
“Why did you choose to ask that person?”
They know the Lord and I know they will pray. Of course, you don’t know if any departed saint can hear you or that they will pray.
“Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective.”
Which is another silly part of this. Instead of believing God who tells Christians to approach His throne with BOLDNESS, people believe someone departed is closer to God and has “pull” that they do not have. False.
“Very early on, however, the meaning of the word began to change.”
God never changed His proclamation that every Christian is a saint.
“The word saint thus became more narrowly applied to such people, who were venerated after their deaths as saints, usually by the members of their local church or the Christians in the region where they had lived, because they were familiar with their good deeds.”
Which is why it is a distortion of God’s truth.
“Eventually, the Catholic Church created a process, called “canonization,” through which such venerable people could be recognized as saints by all Christians everywhere. “
Which is even worse - to perpetuate a falsehood.
“Catholics believe that both types of saints (canonized and acclaimed) are already in Heaven, which is why one of the requirements for the canonization process is proof of miracles performed by the possible saint after his death.”
Back to stupid, since there is no evidence that a prayer was heard, or that the saint intervened, or that it can be credited to that person.
From start to finish, it is a falsehood perpetuated.
Sad that your religion has no saints....very sad.
“Sad that your religion has no saints....very sad.”
You did not read correctly. Christianity (”my religion”) is comprised of ALL saints. Every single individual, from the moment they entrust themselves to Christ for salvation, are declared saints by God, according to His Word.
The better question is why “your religion” has so few...???
Do you REALLY believe that ALL people that have been baptized go to HEAVEN??? REALLY??? You don’t read your Bible very well if that’s what you think. Are you a Mormon??
Hope you are getting that evidence about Bishop Sheen.....waiting.
Where is that in the Bible that all men are saints.
How Many Miracles are Required to Canonize a Saint?
Saints [Catholic, Orthodox, Open]
SAINTHOOD 101: Rules for Becoming a Saint [Catholic Caucus]
The Process of Becoming a Saint (Canonization) [Catholic Caucus]
Pope Lists Criteria for Causes of Canonization
On the contrary, the saints are alive. Their intercessory prayers are just as effective as ours but even ore so since they have attained paradise.
Read this and quit putting down the canonization process of the Catholic Church, which you know nothing about.
“The case will next be reviewed by a board of theologians. With their approval the case could move on to the cardinals and bishops who advise the Pope on these matters. Finally, the miracle would be presented to Pope Francis who would then officially affirm that God performed a miracle through the intercession of Fulton Sheen”
Now who does it state above performed the miracle, Fulton Sheen or God?
Yes, I understand the Catholic definition of a saint. It’s quite different from what you find in the Bible.
For a quick insight into God’s definition, check a concordance and then thumb through a few of the occurences of the word in the Scriptures.
I’ll stand with God’s definition. I hope you will too.
Bishop Sheen was indeed Bishop of Rochestor, until he resigned some two years later. I still wonder why he resigned and what he did afterwards.
You must not have read any of those links, for recommendations for sainthood are thoroughly investigated and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is always sought.
And BTW, all people living on earth are sinners in one way or another.
“Do you REALLY believe that ALL people that have been baptized go to HEAVEN??? REALLY???”
Dear FRiend... please slow down and read. Twice now you have completely overlooked what I wrote and substituted something different. Perhaps go back and read carefully.
“You dont read your Bible very well if thats what you think.”
I have read and studied what it says, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book and outlined the same. I’ve studied it in the original languages. I know what it says. I know what GOD says.
“Are you a Mormon??”
Of course not, I’m a Christian.
“Hope you are getting that evidence about Bishop Sheen.....waiting.”
Again, slow down and read. You will find out that you asked that of a different FReeper. It was not me.
“On the contrary, the saints are alive. Their intercessory prayers are just as effective as ours but even ore so since they have attained paradise. “
We agree they are alive. There is no evidence they can hear us. Their prayers are no more effective than ours, even if they could hear us. That is totally made up out of whole cloth.
“Read this and quit putting down the canonization process of the Catholic Church, which you know nothing about.”
I do. I won’t stop proclaiming the truth of God’s word, which trumps any man-made process. If you do not wish to encounter those who do not high five made up things, stick with caucus threads.
“Now who does it state above performed the miracle, Fulton Sheen or God?”
Bad question. It is credited that Sheen performed one of the “necessary” miracles to move him forward. Neither did he perform a miracle, nor do we know that we heard the prayers, nor do we know he prayed, nor will he become a saint by this process.
Jesus said, “If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” St. Paul called the church, “the pillar and foundation of truth.”
The Church will pronounce on Bishop Sheen’s sainthood.
Where in the Bible does it say that I should listen to Luther, or you?
-— There is no evidence they can hear us -—
Its in your Bible.
the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8)
The Supreme Court of heaven considers cases brought before them. They aren’t a heavenly NSA always listening into private affairs. That is the domain of others.
So you want a miracle, eh?
No discussion of canonizations should fail to note that the office of “Promoter of the Faith” (commonly known as the devil’s advocate) was abolished by John Paul II in 1983.
Since that change, the canonization rate per year has increased by something in excess of 1,500 percent.
Actually, the passage you bring to the discussion has 24 Elders, unidentified, who are holding incense. They are presenting the incense before the LAMB.
No where does it say anyone prayed to the Elders.
No where does it identify who the elders are.
No where does it say the elders heard the prayers.
No where does it say the elders prayed - nor played the harp they carried.
“Jesus said, If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector. St. Paul called the church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”
You’ve been instructed before that the partial quote above is about church discipline only. Yet you posted it again.
Don’t listen to me. Go read the Bible. God addresses Christians as saints, without regard to miracles, and does it while they are alive.
Either listen to God or not.
True, except they are sinners in all ways. James 2:10-12
So it is that with all that rely on the law for salvation.
So it is that believers in Christ are saints on this earth at the same time sinners. 1 Cor 6:1-3
Yeah, no [kidding*], there’s no medical explanation.
I like to think I would say this even if I weren’t coming in next month (I sign the book tomorrow night): If there’s any appropriate response to what happened in this case other than “Thank You, God, and thank you for your prayers, Excellency!” I truly don’t know what it would be. God bless them all.
*(I’m trying to keep it clean.)
Well, this Vietnam veteran has a bone to pick with Sheen who should not have publically undermined our efforts once our forces were committed. A lifetime of good works corrupted by his association with communists, out-and-out Traitors and other charlatans.
He was also an evolutionist and a partisan of Vatican II. His "conservative" reputation is largely undeserved. But after the canonization of Cardinal Newman, anything goes.
It's only a matter of time before Teilhard de Chardin achieves "sainthood."
I apologize for disobeying your instructions.
But I have a few more questions for you. I hope you don't mind me asking.
So you're saying that Christ's Church had disciplinary authority over sinful Christians?
Do I have that much right?
Was this Church visible? Or were Christians to go to an invisible church to settle disciplinary issues?
If visible, does that visible Church still exist?
Or did it disappear?
When did it disappear?
"Did the gates of hell prevail against" this visible church?
If Christ's Church had the power to discipline someone who sins against me, wouldn't that same Church have to define sin?
Would this definition be infallible or fallible?
If fallible, wouldn't this contradict St. Paul, who called the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"?
Or was St. Paul exempting this church's theological teachings?
But aren't churches defined by their theological doctrines?
Or was St. Paul referring to a different church than Christ?
Did Christ found separate churches, with different teachings?
But how could separate and visible churches, with different doctrines and disciplines, settle disputes?
Wouldn't this render Christ's command void and meaningless?
Does it seem odd to you that Christ would command us to obey His Church in discipline, but not in theology?
Aren't Churches defined by their theological doctrines?
Was His Church defective in Its teachings?
When someone posts a verse and tries to pass off the meaning into something else, and it is pointed out to them and they continue to post it... they either did not see it, they did not agree with it, they did not understand it, they understood it but want to be deceitful, etc. I have no idea which. I assume you posted it because it is a habit you’ve done before. The verses you posted, however, have nothing to do with the topic.
OK, here are your answers...
“So you’re saying that Christ’s Church had disciplinary authority over sinful Christians?”
It would be more accurate to say (in this passage) the Assembly was the arbiter between Christians who had a disagreement and their decision was final. In other passages, the local assembly is instructed to discipline members who are engaged in willful sin.
“Was this Church visible? Or were Christians to go to an invisible church to settle disciplinary issues?”
Local assemblies are always visible.
“If visible, does that visible Church still exist? Or did it disappear?”
They are located worldwide still and are still visible.
“Did the gates of hell prevail against” this visible church?
No, despite the failures of different assemblies, and their leaders (including “popes”), Christ’s assembly on earth continues to grow. At times, He removes their lampstand (Revelation) and they may be visible, but they are no longer His assembly. At other times, they become so laden down with false doctrine, they are not longer effective at all. In practical terms, they remove themselves.
“If Christ’s Church had the power to discipline someone who sins against me, wouldn’t that same Church have to define sin?”
Absolutely not. God took care of that through inspiration of Scripture. Sin is ultimately disobedience to God. His nature defines it. It is revealed for you to see, if you read it.
“Would this definition be infallible or fallible?”
See above - question is irrelevant, since sin is defined already in Scripture... and God’s Holy Word is infallible. A church is never infallible.
“If fallible, wouldn’t this contradict St. Paul, who called the church, “the pillar and foundation of truth”?”
No. The assembly has the job of being a foundation (support) of truth and a pillar (upholding) God’s truth. The church is not the truth itself. God and His Word are the truth that is to be upheld and supported.
Of course, history shows us that often assemblies of all kinds have not supported or upheld His truth. His truth is infallible. The assembly is never infallible. It is made up of a fallible leadership and fallible members. This is why every human other than Christ needed a Savior. I should add, if God wanted to come right out and say His assembly was infallible, He would have done so. He did not.
“Or was St. Paul exempting this church’s theological teachings?”
See above. Answered there.
“But aren’t churches defined by their theological doctrines?”
Somewhat, but it is inadequate.
The great ones are defined by their love of God, their love of other Christians, their love of His Word, etc. Christ said all men would know us by our love for each other - not our doctrines - though doctrine keeps us on track and limits error. I hope you know that the faith that saves always results in the life of Christ in us being seen in good works to honor God.
“Or was St. Paul referring to a different church than Christ?”
“Did Christ found separate churches, with different teachings?”
Did God create just one kind of flower, one kind of bird, one kind of weather, one kind of star, one kind of cloud, one kind of person, one skin color? If you look at the most central creeds, you will find that most things argued about by Christians are not included. True assemblies share a core teaching. How it is expressed differs. In your religion, you call those “rites”, I believe.
I realize your question makes some kind of sense to you because of your presuppositions, but every true assembly is always made of those who have entrusted themselves to His complete sacrifice for their sins for salvation. It often includes those seeking Him, who have yet to do this and it almost always includes those who claim to follow Him, but do not.
So to summarize this to answer your question, which is a wrong question, there has never been a time in history where the “church” got everything right. If there was, my extensive study of church history has never revealed it. Every church is comprised of humans after all. Humans are prone to emotion, sin, error, and are creatures of the zeitgeist of their error.
“But how could separate and visible churches, with different doctrines and disciplines, settle disputes?”
Each assembly is given instructions on offices of the assembly, responsibilities of those offices and instructions on how an assembly is to behave and how to carry out discipline in that assembly. The truth is that most assemblies do not ever seem to carry out discipline. I go to a church that does follow scripture in that regard.
“Wouldn’t this render Christ’s command void and meaningless?”
Of course not. Two disagreeing Christians would go before their assembly, as commanded, and the local leadership would act in accordance with Scripture.
“Does it seem odd to you that Christ would command us to obey His Church in discipline, but not in theology?”
Christians are never commanded to have identical theology. They are commanded to obey their leaders and highly esteem them. He gave teachers to the assembly. He also gave the leaders of the assembly the instructions to discipline their members, to exhort them, to reprove them, to encourage them. So, no.
Rather than try to take leaps to get where you want to go, it would be better to go to God’s Word and see what He said.
“Aren’t Churches defined by their theological doctrines?”
Answered this duplicate question above already. See that.
“Was His Church defective in Its teachings?”
OFTEN, throughout history on many issues. It’s actions have been deplorable at times too.
Absolutely. Him and Mother Angelica, who should also be the patron saint of businessmen. Her biography, by Raymond Arroyo, is breathtaking.
It seems that me that the term "faith" requires definition. And there is some disagreement among Christian churches about the definition of that term.
I don't see how any individual Protestant church could settle any meaningful disciplinary or doctrinal disagreement definitively, since there is so much disciplinary and doctrinal divergence.
This situation makes it impossible to fulfill Christ's command regarding taking "it to the church," rendering His command meaningless. (Notice that Jesus did not say, "a church."
Should I consider a Baptist as a "pagan or tax collector," because he won't have his disagreement settled at a Presbyterian church? A Catholic church? Orthodox? Assemblies of God? Vice Versa?
There is only one visible Church that has been in continuous existence since Christ.
And it is ironic that Protestants reject Christ's command to "listen to the church," (which one!) on the basis of Luther's doctrine of "the Bible ALONE," which isn't recorded in the Bible, nor taught by Christ's Church.
“It seems that me that the term “faith” requires definition. And there is some disagreement among Christian churches about the definition of that term.”
Greek is specific.
“I don’t see how any individual Protestant church could settle any meaningful disciplinary or doctrinal disagreement definitively, since there is so much disciplinary and doctrinal divergence.”
It happens every day. Perhaps you are not looking at it from the reality of local assemblies, but from the perspective of different assemblies?
“This situation makes it impossible to fulfill Christ’s command regarding taking “it to the church,” rendering His command meaningless. (Notice that Jesus did not say, “a church.””
Oh, not at all. It works in real life every day across the world. The assembly is where the believers assemble. That is where the command of Christ is fulfilled.
“Should I consider a Baptist as a “pagan or tax collector,” because he won’t have his disagreement settled at a Presbyterian church? A Catholic church? Orthodox? Assemblies of God? Vice Versa?”
This is why I suggested that your difficulty is arising because you are overlooking local assemblies and are focusing on different denominations. Local disputes are historically settled at local assemblies, where believers are accountable to the leadership.
“There is only one visible Church that has been in continuous existence since Christ.”
There is just one visible church that is united in faith in Him and His sacrifice, regardless of denomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.