What year did this take place?
The cross behind his head says it all .
Yes. Its simply awful. But I believe not he was responsible for that but some of those masonic infiltrators of that time.
@LiveJohn That may be your main focus, but it is not the focus of ALL of the comments here. Context is always part of the message. The message is not worth commenting on. It's like he didn't prepare. He threw out a few Bible facts that he knew that had no real relevance and a metaphor about two rivers...just trying to fake a homily cause he believed he was just that good.
He took the oath against modernism he knew what St Pius X was doing in protecting the church against modernist but decided to cop out and support them. Mean while he left others to do the heavy lifting
He drank Vatican II kool aid
Ottaviani Intervention
Ottaviani Intervention
No respect for him he could used his gifts to rally the troops against heresy of modernism but like all the others he embraced the polish communist Pope
who never spent a day in communist prison un likes his peer
Yes. He was a heterodox revolutionary. Fortunately when he came to Rochester as a conciliar destroyer, started to visit local synagogue, planned a joint seminary with Protestants and wanted to pass the property of the parish to the govt for the resettlement program, good Catholics of Rochester chased him away.
TO MY CRITICS the number of viewers suggest otherwise.
I also suggest you examine the video more closely. The oval shape of the auditorium suggests an assembly hall rather than a church - perfectly consistent with a memorial celebration on the feast of the Immaculate Conception held on the anniversary of Bishop Waters death.
Your bias is self evident.
Pax Vobiscum.
TO MY CRITICS Since every single comment at the time of your response to me was about the context and not the content of Bishop Sheen's address, I have to assume your response was personal. And although the venue might have been an auditorium, the table used for a Mass is clearly in evidence, complete with candles, crucifix and white altar cloth. And I was pointing out that the NO Mass has not been said on a genuine altar since 1969. Are you suggesting that the number of those in the audience at a memorial event, those who witnessed Bishop Sheen's badly conceived homily, suggests that his homily was actually good? As you pointed out, it was a memorial service for another Bishop. The number of attendees has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of Bishop Sheen's rambling mess.
I don't have a problem with Bishop Sheen. I have a problem with the legion of clergy in the NO Church who regularly dish out unprepared, boring, rambling, ignorant, heretical, plagiarized, puerile sermons. This one, which you thought was good enough to drag out of moth balls from 1975, being a prime example of what I'm talking about.
You could have fooled me.
Personal slurs against the Archbishop prove nothing. Archbishop Sheen's credibility as a faithful Son of the Church was well proven before Vatican II even started.