Fatima Documentary Wed. Dec. 8 PAX TV

[bear06]

Brennan Doherty:

As far as authors go, I have probably read Christopher Ferrara the most. There are other books here:

https://secure.fatima.org/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=1&cat=Books+on+Fatima

I do not know the names of all the authors of “We Resist You to the Face” and have not seen that video.

I merely point out that there are others who have written about Fatima and the Consecration of Russia who are not supposedly “suspended” or in schism. And certainly the people I recognized on the documentary were not schismatics or heretics, even if someone may strongly disagree with their views.

If Christopher Ferrara is not a schismatic I’d be shocked! Yes, of course, no formal proclamation has been made. I hope that people don’t believe there has to be one for somebody to be schismatic. I read a canon law opinion not too long ago on the authors of “We Resist…” and how they could be canonically declared in schism. I think it was in the 2002 or 03 CLSA Advisories and Opinions.

 

[MrS]

Brennan Doherty:

Well, I would love to see any refutation of that article. If you come across one, let me know. Also, what she said in that article is very much in line with what she has said a number of times previously, basically that Russia (and not the world) needed to be named specifically in union with all the Bishops of the world for the consecration to be valid.

Brennan… do you fell like:banghead: . Some just don’t see the confusion is not coming from “Fatima attackers”. All have consistently upheld the reality and importance of Fatima. Marie just doesn’t see that the controversy is that Our Lady gave the directive, and it was not and has not been followed. To straw-dog that into claiming someone calls Sr. Lucia or the pope a liar, is to miss the real problem. Who is reporting what… who is translating the reporting… why is the principal (Sr. Lucia) giving such conflicting statements… and quite simply, why is a fear of hurting ecumenism the real root of the problem/controversy?

I for one, watched the documentary. No one critized Fatima or raised doubt as to its validity. The “problem” is as stated in 3 posts above… the flip flops.

 

[bear06]

Brennan Doherty:

I fail to see why a straightfoward discussion on whether Russia has been consecrated or not has to be labeled as a “conspiracy theory.”

I would agree that Sister Lucia is not infallible. If she has changed her mind, and now says that Russia has after all been consecrated, contradicting what she has previously said, that would not mean that Russia has actually been consecrated. I am not saying she has contradicted her previous testimony.

Yes, Russia is not responsible for every evil in the world. Nevertheless, there seems to be no postiive evidence that Russia has been converted, and I thought the documentary did a good job of pointing that out and contrasting Russia’s supposed “conversion” with what happened with Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico and the mass conversion there and also with the great positive blessings and protection Portugal experienced when the Bishops of that country specifically, by name, consecrated Portugal to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

I’ve seen reports of people saying she changed her mind. I’ve even it heard said that there is a picture of a letter saying something contrary to Russia being consecrated. Where are they? You’d think those pretty pictures would be on www.fatima.org if they existed. All we have now is one person saying it is so. Don’t you get it? No proof of Sr. Lucia saying that the '84 consecration wasn’t valid (most rad-Trads just say that she was coerced) and yet we have several letters saying it was done. This is where the “conspiracy theory” labels come from.

 

[MrS]

Vatican press release which advises that “the Congregation for the Clergy, upon a mandate from a higher authority [Vatican-speak for the Secretary of State], wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under an a divinis suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.” In other words, the anonymous author of a press release says that the anonymous “higher authority” says that the Congregation should say that the Apostolic Signatura says that Father Gruner’s “suspension” has been “confirmed.”

Notice that nowhere in this chain of hearsay and buck-passing is there any indication of (a) who has “suspended” Father Gruner (note well: it is not the Vatican that has done so), (b) when he was “suspended” or (c) why he was suspended. There is a very good reason these particulars are missing from the press release: to reveal the particulars is to reveal that there is absolutely no basis for Father Gruner’s “suspension”—no offense against faith or morals, no violation of any law of the Church, nothing.

 

[bear06]

As far as the Pauline Mass, even Cardinal Ottoviani, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, critiqued it in the Ottoviani Intervention (available online) and I certainly would not consider him to be approaching a “heretical insinuation”. And I certainly would not put Cardinal Ratzinger in that category who has also critiqued it.

You’re behind in the debates. I’d do a forum search for the Ottoviani intervention. Just to catch you up. Cardinal Ottaviani’s original remarks were based on a rough draft. He approved of the Pauline Rite in later letters. The rad-Trads believe he was coerced, or that he was to blind, old and feeble to know what he was doing. Yet another conspiracy theory!

 

[Deacon2006]

I saw the docu drama before, my wife and I turned it off full of lies and half truths.

God Bless

 

[bear06]

MrS:

Vatican press release which advises that “the Congregation for the Clergy, upon a mandate from a higher authority [Vatican-speak for the Secretary of State], wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under an a divinis suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.” In other words, the anonymous author of a press release says that the anonymous “higher authority” says that the Congregation should say that the Apostolic Signatura says that Father Gruner’s “suspension” has been “confirmed.”

Notice that nowhere in this chain of hearsay and buck-passing is there any indication of (a) who has “suspended” Father Gruner (note well: it is not the Vatican that has done so), (b) when he was “suspended” or (c) why he was suspended. There is a very good reason these particulars are missing from the press release: to reveal the particulars is to reveal that there is absolutely no basis for Father Gruner’s “suspension”—no offense against faith or morals, no violation of any law of the Church, nothing.

I think you’re getting your info from the wrong sources. How about the Apostolic Signatura? Not enough proof?

Here’s a better source:
theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/ngruner/wanderer.html

 

[MrS]

again… from another source…

An effective advocate for the cause of Our Lady of Fatima for nearly 25 years, by 1996 Father Gruner was encountering fierce opposition to his work from within the Vatican bureaucratic apparatus now controlled by Vatican Secretary of State, Angelo Sodano. This is the same bureaucracy that hosts Vatican dinners with Mikhail Gorbachev, (4) supports the godless, pro-abortion International Criminal Court to the dismay of pro-life activists around the world,(5) and explicitly renounces any effort to make converts among the Russian Orthodox. (6)

Suffice it to say that the activities of Sodano’s apparatus are hardly in accord with the Virgin of Fatima’s call for the consecration and conversion of Russia to the Catholic faith and the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart in a Catholic social order, as opposed to a New World Order of pan-religious “brotherhood” administered by the United Nations.

No wonder then, that in the Vatican’s June 2000 “commentary” on the Third Secret, it refers repeatedly to none other than Cardinal Sodano’s personal “interpretation” of the Secret and his opinion that the prophecies of Fatima “belong to the past.” (7)

And, given the state of the Church today, it should be obvious to any reasonable observer that the current policies of the Vatican bureaucracy are rather different from what the Virgin of Fatima called for. All of this has been demonstrated abundantly in well-documented articles and books promoted by Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate over the years.(8) A clash between Father Gruner’s apostolate and Sodano’s apparatus—which now effectively rules the Church as de facto Pope (9)—was thus inevitable.

Recognizing that Father Gruner has every right under Church law to advocate his views on the Fatima Message, the Sodano apparatus devised what it thought was a foolproof plan to silence this inconvenient priest by indirection. Father Gruner’s Italian bishop—who had earlier told Father Gruner of “worried signals from the Vatican Secretary of State”(10)—was pressured to order him to leave Canada and “return” to Avellino, Italy, where he had been ordained back in 1976, unless he found a new bishop to incardinate him. (11) Sodano’s apparatus then took steps to prevent any other bishop in the world from incardinating Father Gruner. At the end of this devious process, the plan was to announce (through the Bishop of Avellino) that since Father Gruner had “failed” to be incardinated by another bishop, he must return to Avellino within 30 days (abandoning his entire priestly life’s work) or he would be “suspended” for “disobedience.”(12) But the Sodano apparatus did not foresee at least two developments:

First, despite all efforts to block it, the Archbishop of Hyderabad agreed to incardinate Father Gruner. The Archbishop issued a formal decree of incardination declaring that “evil forces have conspired to destroy your [Father Gruner’s] work of love” and that “bureaucratic forces cannot stifle God’s work.”(13) In subsequent canonical proceedings, the Sodano apparatus (speaking this time through the Congregation for the Clergy) arbitrarily asserted that the incardination in Hyderabad was “non-existent” and that Father Gruner must still return to Avellino or be “suspended” for “disobedience” since he had “failed” to be incardinated elsewhere. The Archbishop of Hyderabad, rejecting this arbitrary claim, strongly reaffirmed his decree of incardination with a new decree, after examining all the pertinent documents and finding no defect in the incardination.(14)

Second, since Father Gruner had been living in Canada with the written permission of the Bishop of Avellino since 1978, under Italian law it was legally impossible for him to return to Italy even if the order to return were just and valid. The Bishop had never taken any steps to obtain proper permissions for a foreign priest to enter an Italian diocese, including an entry visa supported by written commitments that the Bishop provide financial support, medical coverage and pension—for a priest who had been absent, with his permission, for more than 16 years and had not received one penny of support from Avellino in all that time. The Bishop of Avellino has since ignored two written requests from Father Gruner for an explanation of how he can be expected to “return” to Avellino without any visa or guarantees of financial support, as required by Italian immigration law.(15) Nor has the Bishop ever responded to Father Gruner’s notification that the Archbishop of Hyderabad considered Father Gruner to be incardinated in Hyderabad.(16) Clearly, the Bishop himself has no interest in Father Gruner’s “return” to the Diocese of Avellino, which would involve legal work and substantial expense for the lifetime support and maintenance of a foreign-born priest whose services the Bishop has never needed. The Bishop is but a pawn in a canonical game contrived by the Sodano apparatus.

 

[FrmrTrad]

The very title of the program suggests speculation: “Heaven’s Key to Peace”: Peter has the keys (Mt 16:19) to the kingdom. And what is “peace”? One recalls that Our Lord sends not peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34). That’s not the whole of it, e.g. He is the prince of peace (Is 9:6) as well. But nonetheless why should “peace” be the objective necessarily? Perhaps the Holy Father has been told not to consecrate Russia at this time; Russia is very different now from 1917. At that time it attempted to export “revolution”. Now various kinds of mayhem flow as easily in as out of Russia. The “errors” would certainly be different now; even a shepherd child would know this. How can the theological significance of such things be other than speculative?

In the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council it is declared that “The attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church, faithful and shepherds alike” (UR) (#5), which “requires a change of heart” (#7). It is the duty of the Church to carry out the charge that we should all be one. If not the true Church, who? As the truth of this call to union becomes clearer to more people, surely there would be changes of opinion regarding the meaning of various events, and other details. As we have seen, the Fatima ‘conspiracy’ is led by those who doubt that Vatican II was Ecumenical. Why do you assert with such assurance (1 Tim 1:7) that despite the light of Church teachings on ecumenism, the implications of consecration must perforce be what they might have been in a previous epoch? Doesn’t the Church get to decide such matters?

If Sr Lucy had this vision, which we agree she had, why isn’t she willing to be a martyr if she is now being misrepresented? Wouldn’t that be a purer action to expect on the part of someone blessed with such a vision, such a visitation? Countless martyrs had no such vision; what kind of doubting Thomas does she have to be, to reject what she has seen? It would be so easy to refuse to eat, for example. And if she is so fickle, why trust anything she ever did say? Her not being permitted to speak with the public could easily be a spiritual directive to keep her focused on her soul and her life of prayer. The book she wrote (Calls) is quite full of the Spirit, and contains very good advice it seems to me.

MrS:

Replacing the consecration of Russian with the consecration of the “world” was a decision the Church made on her own. She received no divine directive to that effect. Thus the crucial question remains: Does the Church have that right? And if she does not, then what are the consequences for her presumption?

The Church has the keys and is charged with opening and shutting. The Church is in charge of Church affairs. And how can you know what “divine directives” the Church has received? Are you apprised of all possible visions? How do you know, for example, that the Holy Father has not in fact received a visit from the Blessed Mother? How can a question like “Does the Church have that right” be anything other than speculative?

The ‘missing consecration’ is being charged by traditionalists who are by and large unhappy with Pope John Paul II and with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council; yet did not two ‘better’ popes, Pius XI and XII, also not consecrate Russia?

The inherently speculative nature of the inquiry appears to qualify as a deviation to vain babbling (1 Tim 1:6) and to be associated with a general tendency to reject the magisterium on several levels.

 

[bear06]

Here’s a little more proof instead of conspiracy theories regarding Fr. Gruner:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CCLGRNER.HTM

 

[HagiaSophia]

MrS:

Vatican press release which advises that “the Congregation for the Clergy, upon a mandate from a higher authority [Vatican-speak for the Secretary of State], wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under an a divinis suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.” In other words, the anonymous author of a press release says that the anonymous “higher authority” says that the Congregation should say that the Apostolic Signatura says that Father Gruner’s “suspension” has been “confirmed.”

Notice that nowhere in this chain of hearsay and buck-passing is there any indication of (a) who has “suspended” Father Gruner (note well: it is not the Vatican that has done so), (b) when he was “suspended” or (c) why he was suspended. There is a very good reason these particulars are missing from the press release: to reveal the particulars is to reveal that there is absolutely no basis for Father Gruner’s “suspension”—no offense against faith or morals, no violation of any law of the Church, nothing.

If memory serves me (and often it doesn’t), they asked bishops to refuse to incardinate him, thus he could not “work” in any diocese.
I didn’t like it then, I don’t like it now, and speaks far more to political chicanery than anything helpful to the Church. He was shabbily treated at a conference he had paid for and sponsored, guests were forced to cancel and all in all I would say there has been a great deal of mean spiritedness and downright spite directed towards him by some in the hierarchy. Their behavior toward him has always made me wonder more and more as I reviewed the evidence particularly in light of statements made prior to the “secrets” disclosure.

Fr Gruner has provided annual pilgrimages to this shrine, whether one agrees with all of his views on the apparitions, one cannot deny that he has spent most of life fostering devotion to it and I find it odd that so many others on the far left are treated so much more kindly.

As one cardinal recently remarked to another in Rome: Why does everyone you invite to speak at our theology conferences turn out to be a heretic? I asked myself the same thing.

 

[Marie]

MrS:

Brennan… do you fell like:banghead: . Some just don’t see the confusion is not coming from “Fatima attackers”. All have consistently upheld the reality and importance of Fatima. Marie just doesn’t see that the controversy is that Our Lady gave the directive, and it was not and has not been followed.

Don’t go banging your head son. Your liable to hurt yourself!

Marie…can still speak for herself. I see very clearly that “Satan”, is trying to destroy Fatima, using El Gruner and the schismatic crew to do so. Sister Lucia is not a LIAR nor CONFUSED!

If I were going to do anything, it would be to pray harder for forgiveness for El Gruner. He’s going need it one day, like all of us.

The more he works to tear down Fatima and Sister Lucia’s credibility, the more he will have to answer for.

 

[bear06]

Fatima is not a myth

Fatima is not the myth he is talking about.

 

[MrS]

bear06:

I think you’re getting your info from the wrong sources. How about the Apostolic Signatura? Not enough proof?

Here’s a better source:
theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/ngruner/wanderer.html

and then you post - #89 - a site with the exact same wording concerning the “suspension”

My biggest question… Why has Sr Lucia in one translated statement contradicted all her other statements?

Next question… do you think a consecration of Russia, by name, would be insulting to Russia and make things worse (if that is possible)

 

[Marie]

FrmrTrad:

If Sr Lucy had this vision, which we agree she had, why isn’t she willing to be a martyr if she is now being misrepresented? Wouldn’t that be a purer action to expect on the part of someone blessed with such a vision, such a visitation? Countless martyrs had no such vision; what kind of doubting Thomas does she have to be, to reject what she has seen? It would be so easy to refuse to eat, for example. And if she is so fickle, why trust anything she ever did say?

Yep! That’s exactly what Satan and his minions want to accomplish. El Gruner does his hatchet job quite well. More and more souls being led into confusion is right up ole “S’s” alley! He must be thrilled no end.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Deacon2006:

I saw the docu drama before, my wife and I turned it off full of lies and half truths.

God Bless

Could you provide us with some of the lies and half truths?

 

[HagiaSophia]

Brennan Doherty:

Fatima is not a myth, or a genealogy. Rather a simple request was made by Our Lady for the Consecration of Russia with a clear statement as to the consequences if this was done or not.

Thus attempting to get at the heart of whether or not heaven has been obeyed in the matter of Consecrating Russia is not meaningless talk, but rather concerns all Catholics and even the entire world.

Actually I was very hopeful that at the time OL of Kazan started on her journey the pope would simply throw in a prearranged “consecration” to send her off. Sigh. What would it hurt?

 

[FrmrTrad]

MrS:

… the Vatican bureaucratic apparatus now controlled by Vatican Secretary of State… … the same bureaucracy that hosts Vatican dinners with Mikhail Gorbachev, (4) supports the godless, pro-abortion … … hardly in accord with the Virgin of Fatima’s call for the consecration and conversion of Russia … given the state of the Church today, it should be obvious … … The Bishop is but a pawn in a canonical game contrived by the Sodano apparatus.

My goodness, is our faith to be governed by such analyses as these? This material is highly, highly interpretive, is generally premised upon opposition to the magisterium of the Church, and is characterized by public encouragement of schismatic attitudes. We are called to “avoid profane and silly myths” and to “train … for devotion, for … devotion is valuable in every respect, since it holds a promise of life both for the present and for the future” (I Tim 4:7-8). We should “be absorbed in them [these matters of spiritual growth] so that ]our progress may be evident to everyone” (1 Tim 4:15). Traditionalists seem to be in some ways backwards; frequently they lack charity. They are vitriolic not infrequently; and they utterly lack docility to the Holy Father. How does indulgence in fantasies about the Church help one’s spiritual progress? Is any improvement evident in those who follow this course? Many traditionalists are new converts to the Faith; new converts are at particular risk of conceit and the devil’s punishment (1 Tim 3:6). Is more prayer (cf. Calls by Sr Lucia) and less exuberance in bizarre ecclesiological theories and relationships warranted?

 

[MrS]

Marie:

The more he works to tear down Fatima and Sister Lucia’s credibility, the more he will have to answer for.

Then I guess that is the problem. He is not tearing down Fatima. Again, the statements support the reality of Fatima, the miracle, the apparitions, AND the instructions from our Lady to Lucy.

The problem is : Has Russia ( not the"'world") been consecrated. If so, when. If not, why not.

Those who say yes, attack Gruner or whoever

Those who say no, attack no one, but pose the tough questions and then are accused of being scismatic or calling the Pope a liar.

What a way to try and win an discussion!

I respect your views Marie. But with all the confusion, you might be seriously misled. I still think we all accept Fatima as real. I found it interesting that the documentary talked of the two Fatima miracles as awesome. First the movement of the sum, and second the fact that no one was incinerated!

 

[bear06]

My biggest question… Why has Sr Lucia in one translated statement contradicted all her other statements?

Please site the document and source? thanks.