Fr. Nicholas Gruner

[Anonymous2]

1. There’s a whole list of facts above showing why Russia has not been consecrated and why the Third Secret is not fully released. That’s far more than mere hand-waving and allegations of “shockingly disrespectful” comments by other posters (though certain posters have indeed said shockingly disrespectful things about Fr. Gruner, things that, to reiterate, they would not even say about, say, Cardinal Law, or Cardinal Mahony).

As for how we might know with certainty whether Heaven has accepted the Consecration:

1. When the Most Blessed Virgin says “Consecrate Russia with all the world’s bishops” and the Holy Father says “I consecrate the world” without all bishops being united with him in so doing, he misses on both counts, the consecration is obviously and irrefutably not done. This is a bit like disputing whether or not your child has been baptized if the priest were to pour water over your child’s head and say “I baptize your whole family…” One specific person/nation is in question in each case; hence, one specific name must be spoken, however much that might “offend” the anti-Catholic Russian Orthodox who, as we all know, are doing so well thanks to the last 40 years of warm, fuzzy, ecumenical “dialogue.”
2. The Most Blessed Virgin GAVE US A SURE SIGN to know if Her request was granted:

“If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will scatter her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecution of the Church.”

7dolors.com/page3fatima.htm

Now, let’s look around us:

1. Russia is one of the world’s most anti-Catholic countries.
2. Russia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.
3. Russia has an enormous problem with permitting pornography on easily accessible TV.

Conclusion: In brief, Russia has not converted. Not even close.

Therefore, Russia has not been consecrated.

1. There are wars and have been wars ongoing since March 25, 1984, the day of Pope John Paul’s second attempted consecration.
2. When the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of all Truth, promises “There will be peace” this means, there will be peace.
3. There is not peace.

Conclusion: Russia has not been consecrated.

1. If Russia was not consecrated, she would spread her errors around the world.
2. One of the principle errors of Russia was and is atheism,
3. Atheism is spreading around the world.
4. There are also many wars, another consequence of not consecrating Russia.
5. There is also immense persecution of the Church right now amid a perhaps unprecedented crisis.

Conclusion: Yet again, Russia has not been consecrated.

 

[Anonymous2]

This is all rather sad if we think, remember, that there are 2 and just 2 things necessary to avoid possible geo-political disaster and the loss of many souls:

1. That the pope need only mention the name “Russia”
2. That the bishops join him in doing it.

For us, the laity, there is a third criterion: That we pray that Russia be consecrated, and that we stop denying, obfuscating, and meandering around VERY OBVIOUS conclusions staring us right in the face (read the above posts) and admit that Russia has not, to this day, been consecrated.

I will close with this rather chilling account of Sr. Lucia’s meeting with Our Divine Lord in 1931 in Rianxo, Spain. As you read about the French Devolution, recall…100 years TO THE DAY:

"In August of 1931, Sister Lucia, the principal visionary of Fatima, was a nun in the Dorothean convent at Pontevedra. She had been ill, and was sent by her superiors to stay with friends at Rianxo for a sabbatical. Some accounts claim that she was sent incognito, and that even the people in the house where she was staying didn’t know who she was. This seems very reasonable for a nun who has been the focus of so much worldly attention.

While in Rianxo, Sister Lucia customarily prayed at the chapel of Our Lady of Guadalupe. By her own account, Jesus appeared and spoke to her while she was in the chapel. He taught her two new prayers and gave her a stern message to pass on to the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Here is Jesus’ message to be passed on to the leaders of the Church, according to Sister Lucia:

"Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him, they will follow him into misfortune. It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary."

The command alluded to is thought to be the command of Jesus to the pope, together with all the Catholic bishops, to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, given at the convent in Tui in 1929.

Analysts of Sister Lucia’s messages think this refers to King Louis XIV who had been given a message from Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, which she said came from Jesus on June 17, 1689 to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. One hundred years later to the day, on June 17, 1789, his successor, King Louis XVI was stripped of his power by the Third Estate, and four years later, publicly executed under the blade of the guillotine."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rianxo

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The vitriol directed at Father Gruner in this thread is truly astounding. I do not know this priest but am shocked to see people direct the sort of language at him one might expect directed at some sort of serial rapist priest.

If as many people who called him a “blighted soul” got down on their knees and offered an Ave for him, he’d almost certainly rise to rapid sanctity.

Regardless–and as noted, having no “pro” or “anti” Fr. Gruner considerations to go by, but examining solely the facts of the case–the entirety of the Third Secret of Fatima has not been revealed, and Russia has not been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of the Most Blessed Virgin.

How do I know this? The words of the late Holy Father and the present Holy Father, plus those of Archbishop Capovilla are sufficient to show the significant blurring of fact and fiction in this case.

Read Antonio Socci’s book–the one which led Pope Benedict to write him a congratulatory letter of sorts–or consider the following simple points which show clearly, to any thinking person, that

A: Russia has not been consecrated

B. The Third Secret has not been entirely revealed:

A.

1. Our Lady asked for Russia’s consecration in union with all the world’s bishops.
2. In 1984, Pope John Paul did not name Russia in his consecration, and the world’s bishops did not join him.

Conclusion: RUSSIA HAS NOT BEEN CONSECRATED.

1. The Blessed Virgin said that if Russia were consecrated, Russia would be converted to the Faith.
2. Russia, as one of the world’s most anti-Catholic countries, with one of the world’s highest abortion rates, has not converted to the Faith some 23 years after the “consecration.” (compare to Our Lady of Guadalupe and 1530’s Mexico).

Conclusion (by denial of consequent): RUSSIA HAS NOT BEEN CONSECRATED.

1. In order to consecrate a country, one must actually pronounce its name.
2. Pope John Paul did not say the word “Russia” in his offering: catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=629

Conclusion: RUSSIA HAS NOT BEEN CONSECRATED.

1. Sister Lucia, having had direct access to the Blessed Virgin and being most qualified to report on Her wishes, would be able to confirm or deny the efficacy of the Consecration.
2. Five times after 1984, she denied its efficacy, including in a September 1985 edition of Sol de Fatima magazine, of which you could probably request a back issue.

Conclusion: RUSSIA HAS NOT BEEN CONSECRATED.

B.

1. Sister Lucia spoke of part of the 3rd Secret as involving Portugal preserving the dogma of the Faith.
2. The Vatican did not give the rest of this part of the secret: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Conclusion: THE VATICAN DID NOT REVEAL THE FULL SECRET.

1. Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of the 3rd secret as involving the ““the dangers
   threatening the faith and life of the Christian” (cfnews.org/Socci-FourthSecret.htm)
2. The Vatican official version says nothing about dangers facing Christian Faith.

Conclusion: THE VATICAN DID NOT REVEAL THE FULL SECRET.

1. Archbishop Loris Capovilla, Blessed John XXIII’s confidante and one of the few living people who has read the full secret, said that there were 2 parts of the 3rd secret.
2. The Vatican has not released 2 parts of the secret, but only 1.

Conclusion: THE VATICAN DID NOT REVEAL THE FULL SECRET.

1. When Antonio Socci and Solideo Paoloni, two innocuous and physically unimposing Catholic journalists, tried to talk with Cardinal Bertone at a Vatican press conference, they were violently subdued by Vatican officials.
2. Rational human beings with nothing to hide do not violently subdue non-violent, non-threatening journalist.

Conclusion: THE VATICAN DID NOT REVEAL THE FULL SECRET.

1. The Blessed Virgin said that the secret should be released in 1960 because it would be “clearer” then.
2. Nothing about Pope John Paul’s 1981 near-assassination would have been “clearer” in 1960.

Conclusion: THE VATICAN DID NOT REVEAL THE FULL SECRET.

1. The released Vatican version speaks of a “bishop in white” being killed with bullets and arrows, and it speaks of priests and nuns being martyred as well.
2. Mehmet Ali Agca, a lone gunman, shot but did not kill Pope John Paul in 1981, and no notable mass martyrdoms of priests and nuns occurred in 1981.

Conclusion: THE VATICAN DID NOT REVEAL THE FULL SECRET.

Bravo, :clapping:, excellent posts! This is what is meant by actually dealing with the issues.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am not trying to be flippant, so forgive me if it comes across that way. I sincerely want to put the question out there: Why is any of this so important? Why are you skeptical of some aspects of the apparition and it’s surrounding controversy, yet convinced of other aspects? None of us can be certain about any of it.

So my question is, why even focus on it at all, since it is not neccesary for our salvation and the opportunities for deception are so great?

As this thread illustrates, some of the testimonies and interpretations are in conflict. They can’t all be true because some of them directly contradict eachother. Therefore, someone is either lying or mistaken or unstable. How to know what/whom to believe…?

To me, these are dangerous waters to play in. Why not put your faith ONLY in the revealed truth of God through the church magisterium, sacred tradition and scripture, which can neither “deceive nor be deceived”?

I don’t think you are being flippant. As to why all of this is important, I say it is because the primary and first mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. The conversion of Russia by consecrating it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary would involve the salvation of many souls, just as the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico involved the salvation of many souls.

Granted, it doesn’t necessarily involve the salvation of my soul, but I’m sure all on this thread want the salvation of as many souls as possible beyond our own.

The basics as to why be skeptical about the supposed consecration and the Third Secret are laid out very well by Anonymous2 above, and I certainly cannot say it any better. Also, there are certain facts in the case, such as the non-mention of Russia and the non-participation of all the Bishops in the world and the lack of the conversion of Russia and a period of peace which really do not depend on anyone’s testimony, whether it’s Sister Lucia’s or Fr. Gruner’s or anyone else. These facts are plain to see and lead to the inescapable conclusion that Russia has not been consecrated.

As far as contradictory testimony by people such as Sr. Lucia someone would have to do more research. But as I said, the elemental facts do not really depend on her testimony, though I do think her irrefutable testimony regarding the failure of a consecration of the world to suffice is valuable. God bless.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Okay, so what I’m hearing is that we really have NO WAY of knowing if the consecration was done correctly and accepted, EVEN IF SR. LUCIA SAID IT WAS. Am I reading that right? Well, Sr. Lucia is gone now, so we can’t ask her, but wouldn’t a faithful servant of God be trying to communicate to the faithful that it still must be done? Why haven’t we heard of anyone receiving visions of Sr. Lucia urging us to request, or even demand, that the Holy Father do the consecration the way Fr. Gruner… er, I mean, Our Lady, asked for it?

Okay, now I’ve done it… next we’ll be hearing of apparitions of Sr. Lucia, or someone will suddenly remember hearing that Fr. Gruner received locutions and visions of Sr. Lucia and Our Blessed Mother, asking him to demand the consecration be re-done.

Maybe I’m reading the message wrong, but does the conversion of Russia depend SOLELY on the Holy Father consecrating it to the Immaculate Heart? Doesn’t it depend on the faithful observing the Five First Saturdays as well? If so, I’m sorry to admit that I’m partially responsible for Russia remaining unconverted.

I believe we do know whether or not the Consecration of Russia was done even if we don’t take Sr. Lucia’s testimony into account. See my latest post, or, better yet, read Anonymous2’s posts above.

If someone wants to get into the testimony of Sr. Lucia they can do further research. But I don’t think the basics concerning the consecration of Russia are dependent on her testimony regarding whether or not the consecration was done (although, again, her irrefutable testimony regarding the failure of a consecration to the “world” is valuable).

The Pope consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart in union with the Bishops is the first step and is foundational. In other words, we won’t see the conversion of Russia without it even if some people are doing the Five First Saturdays (and God bless them for doing so).

 

[AlexV]

Superstition. Magic. Gnosticism. Fear-mongering.

And a disobedient priest at the heart of it, a priest who won’t OBEY HIS BISHOP AND RETURN TO ITALY.

Louis XVI was beheaded because he was a royal jerk, not because of any consecration of France or lack thereof.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Superstition. Magic. Gnosticism. Fear-mongering.

And a disobedient priest at the heart of it, a priest who won’t OBEY HIS BISHOP AND RETURN TO ITALY.

Louis XVI was beheaded because he was a royal jerk, not because of any consecration of France or lack thereof.

Since you have not responded to any of the arguments made by Anonymous2 there’s nothing really to respond to in your post.

Other than to say that you seem to be concluding that Sr. Lucia was either deluded and/or lying when she passed on that message from Jesus in 1931 to the Church leaders regarding the King of France.

 

[Like]

Since you have not responded to any of the arguments made by Anonymous2 there’s nothing really to respond to in your post.

Other than to say that you seem to be concluding that Sr. Lucia was either deluded and/or lying when she passed on that message from Jesus in 1931 to the Church leaders regarding the King of France.

**Why should anyone want to respond to more of the same old crud of… some radical traditionals on this forum stating…
Gruner is such a saintly man and JP II, B XVI and Sr.Licia are liars.
Your kind make me sick!!!
**

 

[bear06]

Other than to say that you seem to be concluding that Sr. Lucia was either deluded and/or lying when she passed on that message from Jesus in 1931 to the Church leaders regarding the King of France.

He might not have responded to it because it’s from a Wikipedia article that severely lacks any sources to back it up. Sr Lucia didn’t actually mention Louis XIV. This is what some un-named “analysts” came up with and what is the grand source cited? Oh yes, once again it’s Fr. (I’m not suspended) Gruner’s own site.

Analysts of Sister Lucia’s messages think this refers to King Louis XIV

Anyways, in case people have forgotten, this thread is about Fr. Gruner.

From the OP:

Is Fr. Nicholas Gruner still considered a Priest in good standing with the Church? Some Church officials say he is not, but Fr. Gruner suggests volumously that he has never been relieved of his office or duties.

It has been repeatedly shown what the Church thinks regarding his status. He failed the obedience test and was suspended.

 

[Shoshana]

Superstition. Magic. Gnosticism. Fear-mongering.

And a disobedient priest at the heart of it, a priest who won’t OBEY HIS BISHOP AND RETURN TO ITALY.

Louis XVI was beheaded because he was a royal jerk, not because of any consecration of France or lack thereof.

I would not make such a bold statement…as it was asked by Our Lord that France be consecrated to His Most Sacred Heart.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would not make such a bold statement…as it was asked by Our Lord that France be consecrated to His Most Sacred Heart.

Maybe so, maybe not, again private revelations are not binding and one is free to believe or not believe in them.

Anyways, I doubt the Lord would have a person killed as evidence of a consecration. (Not only that but the French Revolution was not a great time for the Catholic Church)

As for the Third Secret. The only way to say that it hasn’t been revealed is to know what it is and everyone who knows what it is, including the Pope and Sr Lucia (the one who gave the secret to the Vatican) say it was revealed. So either they are liars or not. I stand with those who know what the secret is and who are in good standing with the Church over some disobedient suspended priest who has never seen the secret.

 

[Shoshana]

Maybe so, maybe not, again private revelations are not binding and one is free to believe or not believe in them.

Anyways, I doubt the Lord would have a person killed as evidence of a consecration. (Not only that but the French Revolution was not a great time for the Catholic Church)

.

I do not fully understand yout statement here about the Lord having a person killed as evidence of a consecration. The consecration was not done. And it is from there that we experienced the Revolution and the Enlughtement. Now France is mostly secular and liberal. France was second to none to Italy as far as relgiion goes.

 

[jrabs]

Since you have not responded to any of the arguments made by Anonymous2 there’s nothing really to respond to in your post.

I am still wondering why none of the Fr. Gruner fan base has dealt with addressing the obedience issue.

It is a major one, no?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am still wondering why none of the Fr. Gruner fan base has dealt with addressing the obedience issue.

It is a major one, no?

No, it is not a major issue at all as regards the consecration of Russia and the Third Secret because whether or not Fr. Gruner is suspended has nothing to do with those two issues nor does the evidence stand or fall on his suspension.

However, if you want to look at an argument regarding the suspension be my guest:

The Fatima Center | Promoting the Full Message of Fatima

 

[jrabs]

However, if you want to look at an argument regarding the suspension be my guest:

fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp

My side hurts!

So you would follow a priest that outright disobedient to his bishop and Rome. See that just is wrong.

 

[MarieO2]

My side hurts!

So you would follow a priest that outright disobedient to his bishop and Rome. See that just is wrong.

Yep! It sure is. :yup:

 

[qui_est_ce]

My side hurts!

So you would follow a priest that outright disobedient to his bishop and Rome. See that just is wrong.

Yep! It sure is. :yup:

It is a heresy called Monatism, named for its founder, Montanus, who lived in the second century. Monatists asserted the end of the world was near, (GLOOM AND DOOM terrible wars) and opposed some teachings of the Church asserting that they had Divine Revelation. (visions) Monatism was condemned by the Church in the last decade of the second century.

Maybe the Baptists are right in their theory of the the Trail of Blood, wherein the Catholic Church murdered anyone who disagreed with her, except for a small group of Christians who hid out and survived, practicing the TRUE teachings of Christ, not some man-made rules.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

My side hurts!

So you would follow a priest that outright disobedient to his bishop and Rome. See that just is wrong.

It is not a matter of “following” Fr. Gruner. I have never met him. I have never donated money to him. I do not hold my views on the consecration of Russia or the Third Secret “because Fr. Gruner said so and I just listen to whatever he says no matter what.”

The article I linked to above was not written by Fr. Gruner.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is not a matter of “following” Fr. Gruner. I have never met him. I have never donated money to him. I do not hold my views on the consecration of Russia or the Third Secret “because Fr. Gruner said so and I just listen to whatever he says no matter what.”

The article I linked to above was not written by Fr. Gruner.

Ok, so maybe it isn’t a case of Monatism but just a plain case of the heresy of Protestantism.

That is you have chosen to raise yourself and your opinions to the level of authority over the Church’s authority.

The Church, though the Pope, has said one thing (that Sr Lucia, who received the private revelation at Fatima, agrees with) and you chose to believe another.

 

[planter654]

**Why should anyone want to respond to more of the same old crud of… some radical traditionals on this forum stating…
Gruner is such a saintly man and JP II, B XVI and Sr.Licia are liars.
Your kind make me sick!!!
**

Not a Christian response my friend. Even Jesus did not answer Judas this way! I pray for you that Jesus does not give you the same answer. St. Peter prayed for us: “Forgive them for they know not what they do” For we are all sinners are we not? We also are not at yet at the Spiritual level that St. Peter was! We were not spitting milk yet.

The very sin that we commit is the very sin that punishes us, don’t you think? Remember we are not all at the same level in our believes or faith. The fact that this child of God is on this site, do not interfer with the works of God. But boast only of what you have received and with compassion that Jesus has given to us all, now fallow Jesus and give compassion also onto others. Trust and leave the rest to God!

God Bless