Fatima Consecration

[Aragorn1]

many people iam sure have converted in russia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Russia

Relations with the Russian Orthodox church have been rocky for nearly a millennium, and attempts at re-establishing Catholicism have met with opposition. Pope John Paul II for years expressed a desire to visit Russia, but the Russian Orthodox Church has for years resisted.[7] In April 2002, Bishop Jerry Mazur of Eastern Siberia was stripped of his visa, forcing the appointment of a new bishop for that diocese.[8] In 2002, five foreign Catholic priests were denied visas to return to Russia, construction of a new cathedral was blocked in Pskov, and a church in southern Russia was shot at.[9] On Christmas Day 2005, Russian Orthodox activists planned to picket outside of Moscow’s Catholic Cathedral, but the picket was cancelled.[10] Despite the recent thawing of relations with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, there are still issues such as the readiness of the police to protect Catholics and other minorities from persecution.[11]

There are approximately 750,000 Catholics in Russia - about 0.5% of the total population.

And this is 23 years after the consecration of the world in 1984, and 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So much for the claim that “many people have converted”.

not all of the people there are anti catholic. people are free in russia now to convert. they do not have to fear the KGB coming after them. i am quite positive that russians and others who lived in communist countries are free to convert if they want to.

Our Lady of Fatima did NOT say that “people will be free to convert in Russia, there will be democracy and religious tolerance, etc.”. No, she said simply “Russia will be converted.” That has not happened, regardless of what “Sr. Lucy” claims (assuming her letters are authentic).

And even if they are authentic, and she really did think the COR has been done, how would she know? How could she have possibly known whether the consecration has been “accepted by Heaven”, as one of her letters claims, when, according to Cardinal Bertone, she hadn’t had any new visions or revelations for years?

Somebody’s lying.

 

[TraditionalCath]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Russia

There are a mere 750,000 Catholics in Russia today: less than 0.5% of the total population. And this is 23 years after the consecration of the world in 1984, and 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So much for the claim that “many people have converted”.

Our Lady of Fatima did NOT say that “people will be free to convert in Russia, there will be democracy and religious tolerance, etc.”. No, she said simply “Russia will be converted.” That has not happened, regardless of what “Sr. Lucy” claims (assuming her letters are authentic).

And even if they are authentic, and she really did think the COR has been done, how would she know? How could she have possibly known whether the consecration has been “accepted by Heaven”, as one of her letters claims, when, according to Cardinal Bertone, she hadn’t had any new visions or revelations for years?

Somebody’s lying.

you know what? i think your too caught up in conspiracy theories to believe anything other than what you believe.i know our Lady did not say people are free to believe, but they are free to believe or not to believe. i see you believe that the sister lucia we know of is not the same one from fatima correct? again, i think your too caught up in conspiracy theories. there is no conspiracy in the Catholic Church. none. who do you think is responible for these so called conspiracies? do you mind telling us please? exactly who is responsible? i can’t see anyone who is responsible because there is no one responsible because there is no conspiracy. never has been, and never will be.

 

[Aragorn1]

the op started this thread about father gruner, so i don’t have to set it aside.

I think what Tody meant was that, regardless of Fr. Gruner’s suspension, the arguments he and his apostolate have made are still valid. Nobody has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the COR was truly done in accordance with Our Lady’s request, and nobody has refuted the arguments in favor of the existence of a “missing text” of the Third Secret, that has not yet been revealed. Regardless of the status of Fr. Gruner, his arguments are still valid and have never been proven false. And quite frankly, nobody cares what Cardinal Bertone has to say about the matter. As I’ve pointed out in a previous post, when Sr. Lucy was still living, Bertone had an opportunity to prove beyond all doubt that the COR was already done and that the secret was released: all he had to do was provide a recording, or at least a transcript, of his alleged interview in 2001. That he is not done, and no one should be so naive as to take his word for it.

 

[TraditionalCath]

I think what Tody meant was that, regardless of Fr. Gruner’s suspension, the arguments he and his apostolate have made are still valid. Nobody has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the COR was truly done in accordance with Our Lady’s request, and nobody has refuted the arguments in favor of the existence of a “missing text” of the Third Secret, that has not yet been revealed. Regardless of the status of Fr. Gruner, his arguments are still valid and have never been proven false. And quite frankly, nobody cares what Cardinal Bertone has to say about the matter. As I’ve pointed out in a previous post, when Sr. Lucy was still living, Bertone had an opportunity to prove beyond all doubt that the COR was already done and that the secret was released: all he had to do was provide a recording, or at least a transcript, of his alleged interview in 2001. That he is not done, and no one should be so naive as to take his word for it.

we ought not to support father gruner. those who willfully do it well, here is what this article says:

“Catholics who associate themselves with such efforts participate in at least material disobedience to lawful papal authority. This means that externally, in themselves, their acts are disobedient, though internally, through ignorance or lack of intention, they may not be morally culpable (formal disobedience). However, they could, over time, find themselves in formal schism from the Church, that is, knowingly and willfully disobeying papal authority.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/fr_gruner_old.htm

again, i ask you, who do you think is responsible for this alleged conspiracy and cover up? can you name the persons responsible for the cover up?

 

[Toby_Bedford]

TraditionalCath,

Any Catholic can ask the questions, Has Russia converted since the Consecration of 1984? and, Are there many signs of conversion? This does not require us to subscribe to Fr. Gruner or anyone else. I ask that question and I do not find fruits of the Consecration. Here is an example from “Relgious freedom in Russia”.

"This law effectively bans all organized religious activity and missionary work by Protestant religious denominations, non-denominational groups, charismatics, and new and small religions. President Yeltsin vetoed such legislation during the summer. He received such a strong reaction from the Russian Orthodox Church and the nationalists, however, that on September 26, 1997, he signed into law a bill similar to the one which he had vetoed.

Under this law, only those faiths – Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism – which were officially recognized by the former Soviet Union are accorded full legal status. Only those faiths registered under the Stalin regime 50 years ago may be recognized as country- wide religious organizations with the right to call themselves “All-Russian.” All other religious groups who wish to continue to carry on religious activities will have to prove that they have been registered for 15 years. In 1999, the Constitutional Court upheld the 15 year rule but held that it did not apply to religious organizations that were registered before the 1997 law. Lacking full legal status, religious organizations may not have bank accounts or own property.

The law gives the government the right to determine whether or not a religious body complies with its own creed. If it is determined by official government experts that any church is not acting in accordance with its creed the government has the right to close the church. The language of the bill states that “religious organizations may be liquidated” if they advocate home schooling, oppose military service, place limitations on medical treatment, preach “religious animosity,” or “represent a threat to the security of the state.”

President Clinton, the United States Congress, and Pope John Paul have all expressed their strong opposition to the decline of religious freedom in Russia. Religious freedom was also one of the major issues raised by newly elected US President Bush in his meetings with Russian President Yeltsin.

Sincerely,
Toby Bedford

 

[Aragorn1]

you know what? i think your too caught up in conspiracy theories to believe anything other than what you believe.i know our Lady did not say people are free to believe, but they are free to believe or not to believe. i see you believe that the sister lucia we know of is not the same one from fatima correct? again, i think your too caught up in conspiracy theories. there is no conspiracy in the Catholic Church. none. who do you think is responible for these so called conspiracies? do you mind telling us please? exactly who is responsible? i can’t see anyone who is responsible because there is no one responsible because there is no conspiracy. never has been, and never will be.

“There is no conspiracy, never has been and never will be”? Wow, you must be awfully naive to make a comment like that… Well, I guess JFK wasn’t assassinated then, I guess there’s no such thing as the Freemasons, I guess the Bolshevik Revolution never happened, I guess the Soviet Union was not trying to conquer the world, I guess the nephews of Richard III were never murdered; heck, maybe Piltdown Man wasn’t a fraud after all. You’ve got to be kidding yourself to believe that there is no such thing as a conspiracy, or even that one can’t happen given the right circumstances.

It is good to be prudent concerning conspiracy theories, especially the really wild ones such as those that claim the astronauts really didn’t walk on the moon, or that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks. But this is not to say that conspiracies don’t happen. They do; but we shouldn’t consistently invoke wild theories to explain away things that are easily explained otherwise.

And that brings us to the main point: the Fatima happenings are not easily explained away. Look at the state of Russia and the world (I’ve already posted things on this subject further up the board, if you want to check them out). The simple fact of the matter is, and anyone who has any idea of what they are talking about would agree, that Russia has NOT converted to the Catholic Faith, and a period of peace has NOT been granted to the world. You can say what you like about the so-called fall of the Soviet Union, but that doesn’t change the situation. These are the observed facts, now how do we explain them? Obviously, the COR has not been done, since it has not brought about the promised effects even after 23 years. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that the 1984 consecration was NOT done in union with ALL the bishops of the world, and it did NOT mention Russia explicitly. In addition, the Pope himself, both during and after the consecration, referred to Russia implicitly as “those peoples of whom you yourself [the B.V.M.] are awaiting our act of consecration”, indicating that the consecration has not been done. Therefore, the consecration was not done, and anything claimed to the contrary, whether by Sr. Lucy or not, is quite simply false.

You seem to be locked into a paradigm: anything said (or allegedly said) by “Sr. Lucy” has to be true by definition in your eyes. What if “Sr. Lucy” claimed that 2+2=5? Would you be so naive as to believe her? The evidence points in one direction, “Sr. Lucy’s” letters in another. Which is right: the facts; or a few letters which could have easily been forged, and which completely contradict all the observed facts and everything Sr. Lucy had said up until then? Why didn’t Cardinal Bertone and company have Sr. Lucy come forth herself and testify in front of a camera when she was alive? It was clearly in their best interest to do so. Instead, they resorted to a “private interview” of which no audio or video record, or even textual transcript, exists. The only “record” of the alleged interview is a short summary (written by Bertone himself, what’s more) which recounts a total of about 500 spoken words of Sr. Lucy, out of a total of 10 hours worth of interviews!

As for your question, “who is behind the conspiracy?”, I say that’s an excellent question, but one that the answer to which is far too complicated to explain in a single message board post. Some recommended books: The Divine Impatience by Christopher Ferrara, The Devil’s Final Battle by Father Paul Kramer, and Fatima in Twilight by Mark Fellows. I see you seem to have an aversion to Father Gruner, so I won’t suggest anything by him. But if you do your research, you’ll find that he is not the only one who believes what he believes.

As for your comments about me being “caught up in conspiracy theories”, I’ve noticed that you haven’t engaged my arguments or Fr. Gruner’s on a factual level; all you’ve done is make generalizations about conspiracy theories and how they can never be true: a conclusion which is patently false.

 

[tradition]

Some of us know who Father Gruner is and that he believes that Russia - and not the world - should be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in union with all the bishops of the world.

However, I realized the other day that the 1984 consecration was not done “in union with all the bishops of the world”. Our Lady did not specify that they be Catholic bishops, nor did she indicate whether they had to be in union with Rome. The phrase “all the bishops of the world” could include Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and it could even include the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Any thoughts on this?

Hi, I just got around to reading
your questions. It’s very obvious our Blessed Mother would only be referring to Catholic Bishops because She is recognized only as the Mother of God to be prayed to through rosaries, which she requested. This would exclude all other religions as they do not believe in the rosary which she requested many times:thumbsup: to the three children of Fatima.

 

[tradition]

You should accept what Sister Lucia said and not Father Gruner. Mary did not come to him!

Hi,
If you read “The Devil’s Final Battle” you will find in there that Sister Lucia has been “misquoted”

 

[Toby_Bedford]

Hi,
If you read “The Devil’s Final Battle” you will find in there that Sister Lucia has been “misquoted”

what page is it?

 

[Aragorn1]

we ought not to support father gruner. those who willfully do it well, here is what this article says:

“Catholics who associate themselves with such efforts participate in at least material disobedience to lawful papal authority. This means that externally, in themselves, their acts are disobedient, though internally, through ignorance or lack of intention, they may not be morally culpable (formal disobedience). However, they could, over time, find themselves in formal schism from the Church, that is, knowingly and willfully disobeying papal authority.” ewtn.com/expert/answers/fr_gruner_old.htm

again, i ask you, who do you think is responsible for this alleged conspiracy and cover up? can you name the persons responsible for the cover up?

I just read that article, and I agree completely. I too am fed up with these extreme traditionalists who see themselves as “the last remnant of the faithful”, and who tend to look down their collective nose at the “inferior ‘Novus Ordo’ Catholics”. I may not agree with everything Fr. Gruner says, and I agree that he has been suspended by the Church*; however, his position concerning Fatima is not something that can simply be swept under the rug. It has to be dealt with, and it is not; it is being suppressed. I feel the same way about Chris Ferrara, whose book I recommended in my last post. I don’t always agree with his views (on EWTN, for example), but when it comes to the Third Secret and the COR, I have to admit he’s absolutely right.

• It’s interesting, though, that, as Father Kramer points out in The Devil’s Final Battle, Fr. Gruner is the only Catholic priest in the world who is being suspended, persecuted, threatened with excommunication; while around the world thousands of priests are guilty of sexual scandals, and the Vatican has done almost nothing. Why is Fr. Gruner targeted for spreading the truth about Fatima, when other priests who are guilty of far worse crimes are just transferred to a different diocese, or their crimes are covered up?

Something highly ironic happened on September 12, 2001, the day after the worst terrorist attack in history: the Vatican published a letter stating that, by mandate of “a higher authority” (in other words, the Secretary of State, Bertone), Fr. Gruner would be suspended; and Catholics were forbidden to attend his October conference - on World Peace!!! Talk about bad timing!

 

[Aragorn1]

Sister Lucy was asked: “What do you say to the persistent affirmations of Fr. Gruner who is gathering signatures in order that the Pope may finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which has never been done?”. She replied: “The Carmelite Community has rejected the forms for gathering the signatures. I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted in heaven.”

[Emphasis mine]

This one quote invalidates the entire article. Sr. Lucy would NEVER have rejected a petition to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, regardless of whether or not it had been done once before. No true Catholic would. After all, even if it had been done before, what harm could possibly come from doing it again? I personally think every nation should be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart.

The only people who would object to consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart would be people who have some agenda to the contrary, or who wish to avoid unpleasant diplomatic situations with Russia (which is probably why the COR has never been done in the first place).

 

[Shoshana]

I just read that article, and I agree completely. I too am fed up with these extreme traditionalists who see themselves as “the last remnant of the faithful”, and who tend to look down their collective nose at the “inferior ‘Novus Ordo’ Catholics”. I may not agree with everything Fr. Gruner says, and I agree that he has been suspended by the Church*; however, his position concerning Fatima is not something that can simply be swept under the rug. It has to be dealt with, and it is not; it is being suppressed. I feel the same way about Chris Ferrara, whose book I recommended in my last post. I don’t always agree with his views (on EWTN, for example), but when it comes to the Third Secret and the COR, I have to admit he’s absolutely right.

• It’s interesting, though, that, as Father Kramer points out in The Devil’s Final Battle, Fr. Gruner is the only Catholic priest in the world who is being suspended, persecuted, threatened with excommunication; while around the world thousands of priests are guilty of sexual scandals, and the Vatican has done almost nothing. Why is Fr. Gruner targeted for spreading the truth about Fatima, when other priests who are guilty of far worse crimes are just transferred to a different diocese, or their crimes are covered up?

Something highly ironic happened on September 12, 2001, the day after the worst terrorist attack in history: the Vatican published a letter stating that, by mandate of “a higher authority” (in other words, the Secretary of State, Bertone), Fr. Gruner would be suspended; and Catholics were forbidden to attend his October conference - on World Peace!!! Talk about bad timing!

I live pretty close to Fr Gruner’s Apostolate…and from what I understand, Fr Gruner may have been suspended publicly but NEVER received personnally said letter of suspension. Go figure!

 

[TraditionalCath]

I just read that article, and I agree completely. I too am fed up with these extreme traditionalists who see themselves as “the last remnant of the faithful”, and who tend to look down their collective nose at the “inferior ‘Novus Ordo’ Catholics”. I may not agree with everything Fr. Gruner says, and I agree that he has been suspended by the Church*; however, his position concerning Fatima is not something that can simply be swept under the rug. It has to be dealt with, and it is not; it is being suppressed. I feel the same way about Chris Ferrara, whose book I recommended in my last post. I don’t always agree with his views (on EWTN, for example), but when it comes to the Third Secret and the COR, I have to admit he’s absolutely right.

• It’s interesting, though, that, as Father Kramer points out in The Devil’s Final Battle, Fr. Gruner is the only Catholic priest in the world who is being suspended, persecuted, threatened with excommunication; while around the world thousands of priests are guilty of sexual scandals, and the Vatican has done almost nothing. Why is Fr. Gruner targeted for spreading the truth about Fatima, when other priests who are guilty of far worse crimes are just transferred to a different diocese, or their crimes are covered up?

Something highly ironic happened on September 12, 2001, the day after the worst terrorist attack in history: the Vatican published a letter stating that, by mandate of “a higher authority” (in other words, the Secretary of State, Bertone), Fr. Gruner would be suspended; and Catholics were forbidden to attend his October conference - on World Peace!!! Talk about bad timing!

i only agree with you on one thing, that i don’t like it when people look down their noses at"inferior" NO Catholics. that we agree upon. and we also agree he was suspended. so actually, that makes 2 things we agree upon.

 

[Shoshana]

i we also agree he was suspended. so actually, that makes 2 things we agree upon.

He was suspended publicly not personnally…the letter of suspension was never received by him!

 

[TraditionalCath]

He was suspended publicly not personnally…the letter of suspension was never received by him!

private or public, he is not to receive our support.

 

[Shoshana]

private or public, he is not to receive our support.

just a question. If you were fired but the news was plastered all over the internet but never told to you either by word or by letter…are you fired?

 

[TraditionalCath]

just a question. If you were fired but the news was plastered all over the internet but never told to you either by word or by letter…are you fired?

yup. it is public knowledge that he is suspended. i prefer not to put myself in schism by supporting him. so you can do what you prefer, it is your life, and you can either support him or not, or you can believe him or not. that is your free will to do so. i wont be doing it. i wont put myself in schism. people cannot pick and chose what they want from the church. it is the way it is. i will always obey the pope. the pope is the Vicar of Christ, and he has the right to govern the church. we cannot pick and chose.

if people want to knowingly support father gruner, then they risk schism. if they want to support him, their decision. not mine.

 

[bones_IV]

just a question. If you were fired but the news was plastered all over the internet but never told to you either by word or by letter…are you fired?

Here it is**

Father Grunner Question from on 04-23-2002:**
Dear sirs,Is Father Nicholas Grunner in good standing with the Church?

**Answer by Bill Bilton on 04-23-2002:
** Father Nicholas Gruner started an apostolate in the 1970s to promote the message of Fátima. This is done through a magazine called “Fátima Crusader.” He and his magazine take a critical stance toward the compliance of the Popes with the message of Fátima, specifically the request for the Consecration of Russia. This stance continued after the Consecration of 1984 and the 2001 publication of the Third Secret of Fátima, both of which he considers incomplete. Despite recent assurances by the remaining visionary Sr. Lucia Santos, given through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his criticism continues. It should be noted that Fátima is not a matter of the faith. In addition to Fátima Crusader, Fr. Gruner owns and publishes the “Catholic Family News,” which he acquired several years ago. Like the “Remnant” and several other small Catholic papers, “Catholic Family News” takes a critical view of the post-conciliar changes in the Church, especially in matters of the liturgy. With respect to the Tridentine Mass, it is not only preferred but the current Rite, while acknowledged as valid, is considered a complete innovation, departure from tradition and a disaster for the Church. In recent years CFN has also become very critical of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II in matters such as ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. Again, it is not just the implementation of Vatican II in these areas, but the very direction the Council and the post-conciliar popes have taken. This criticism reached its zenith in 2000 with the publication of We Resist You to Your Face, the “You” being Pope John Paul II. This resistance is intended to restore the Traditional Catholic Faith, as they understand it, by resisting what they see as novelties and innovations in the governance of the Church since Vatican II and in particular under the present Pope.
Is such a position defensible? In many theoretical ways, yes. Infallibility is not engaged in the conciliar and papal teachings supporting these new directions, the Pope is not impeccable (sinless), and the possibility of fraternal correction of a pope exists. Added to this are the many abuses going on in the Church which scandalize Catholics and discredit the Council. However, the doctrine of the Ordinary Magisterium, that of Papal Primacy in all matters of governance, the obligation of religious assent and obedience to non-infallible teaching (Lumen gentium 25), the concurrence of the apostolic college of the bishops (both at the Council and since) to the whole body of conciliar teaching and policies, together with the acceptance of the overwhelming majority of orthodox clergy, theologians and laity, argue in favor of the teachings and their application. This does not mean that in a particular cases the specific application is not debatable. However, it is the rejection of the whole conciliar direction, not just its abuses or particular applications, which does not seem legitimate. While I do not question the good will of those who have, what they see, as the best interests of the Church and souls at heart, I disagree profoundly with their conclusions, as well as the manner of giving fraternal correction to the Holy Father.
Finally, in recent years there has been a certain lack of clarity regarding the priestly status of Fr. Gruner. According to the the Congregation for the Clergy, his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known.

Shoshana this guy seems very anti Vatican II, STAY AWAY FROM THAT MAN AND HAVE NTOHING TO DO W/ HIM!!!

 

[TraditionalCath]

Here it is**

Father Grunner Question from on 04-23-2002:**
Dear sirs,Is Father Nicholas Grunner in good standing with the Church?

**Answer by Bill Bilton on 04-23-2002:
** Father Nicholas Gruner started an apostolate in the 1970s to promote the message of Fátima. This is done through a magazine called “Fátima Crusader.” He and his magazine take a critical stance toward the compliance of the Popes with the message of Fátima, specifically the request for the Consecration of Russia. This stance continued after the Consecration of 1984 and the 2001 publication of the Third Secret of Fátima, both of which he considers incomplete. Despite recent assurances by the remaining visionary Sr. Lucia Santos, given through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his criticism continues. It should be noted that Fátima is not a matter of the faith. In addition to Fátima Crusader, Fr. Gruner owns and publishes the “Catholic Family News,” which he acquired several years ago. Like the “Remnant” and several other small Catholic papers, “Catholic Family News” takes a critical view of the post-conciliar changes in the Church, especially in matters of the liturgy. With respect to the Tridentine Mass, it is not only preferred but the current Rite, while acknowledged as valid, is considered a complete innovation, departure from tradition and a disaster for the Church. In recent years CFN has also become very critical of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II in matters such as ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. Again, it is not just the implementation of Vatican II in these areas, but the very direction the Council and the post-conciliar popes have taken. This criticism reached its zenith in 2000 with the publication of We Resist You to Your Face, the “You” being Pope John Paul II. This resistance is intended to restore the Traditional Catholic Faith, as they understand it, by resisting what they see as novelties and innovations in the governance of the Church since Vatican II and in particular under the present Pope.
Is such a position defensible? In many theoretical ways, yes. Infallibility is not engaged in the conciliar and papal teachings supporting these new directions, the Pope is not impeccable (sinless), and the possibility of fraternal correction of a pope exists. Added to this are the many abuses going on in the Church which scandalize Catholics and discredit the Council. However, the doctrine of the Ordinary Magisterium, that of Papal Primacy in all matters of governance, the obligation of religious assent and obedience to non-infallible teaching (Lumen gentium 25), the concurrence of the apostolic college of the bishops (both at the Council and since) to the whole body of conciliar teaching and policies, together with the acceptance of the overwhelming majority of orthodox clergy, theologians and laity, argue in favor of the teachings and their application. This does not mean that in a particular cases the specific application is not debatable. However, it is the rejection of the whole conciliar direction, not just its abuses or particular applications, which does not seem legitimate. While I do not question the good will of those who have, what they see, as the best interests of the Church and souls at heart, I disagree profoundly with their conclusions, as well as the manner of giving fraternal correction to the Holy Father.
Finally, in recent years there has been a certain lack of clarity regarding the priestly status of Fr. Gruner. According to the the Congregation for the Clergy, his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known.

Shoshana this guy seems very anti Vatican II, STAY AWAY FROM THAT MAN AND HAVE NTOHING TO DO W/ HIM!!!

 

[bones_IV]

No problemo.