Fr. Nicholas Gruner

[Sure]

I have a question for you…

For years Fr. Guner (and a few others) maintained that the words pro multis in the consecration should have been translated as “for many” rather than “for all”. Also, Fr. Guners (and a few others) maintained, for years, that the old Mass “was never abrogated”.

During all those years, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and virtually ever member of the hierarchy (except for Cardinal Stickly) towed the party line and pretended that the old Mass was abrogated, and that “for all” was a perfectly fine translation of pro multis (even though the evidence to the contrary was irrefutable).

Since being elected Pope, Benedict XVI has had the courage to admit that what Fr. Gruner (and a few others) were saying about the Old Mass and the words of consecration was exactly correct.

Fr. Gruner (and a few others) stood virtually alone in the face of unheard of slander for maintaining the truth - a truth which Rome has finally admitted (thanks to the courage of our new Pope).

Here’s my question: During all those years when Fr. Guner (and a few others) were standing for the truth against virtually the entire hierarchy, were John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger: 1.) misled, 2.) evil, or 3.) cowards.

We can exclude # 1 because, as we know (and as Rome has now admitted publicly), John Paul II appiointed a commission of nine Cardinals to study that point in 1986. One of those Cardinals was Cardinal Ratzinger. The commission found, unanimously, that the Old Mass had never been abrogated.

That means we can exclude the possibility that they were misled. Therefore, using your choices, that leaves us with just two other options. So tell me, which of the two applies to John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger during the time John Paul II was Pope? According to you, the only two choices would be that they were cowards or evil. Which do you say it is?

Now, would anyone really be surprise to learn that the current party-line with respect to the Third Secret is also wrong, and that Fr. Gruner (and a few others) are right again? Especially when our new Pope has admitted that Fatima is one of his greatest regrets?

Solideo Paolini: "But in the end, let us pray for our Holy Father Benedict XVI. The Message of Fatima asks us to pray, to pray a lot for our Holy Father; and the reigning Pope said, at least once, that Fatima is one of his biggest regrets of his life. He was probably moved to act in a certain way and has remained trapped by it. fatimapeaceconferences.co…ni_2007_en.asp

Yes, everything you say here works…if the end justifies the means, but it doesn’t. Even though Fr. Gruner was right about no abrogation, it doesn’t justify saying Mass when he’s suspended. Period. The real heros are not Fr. Gruner.

The real heroes are the men who remained faithful. The men who patiently went through the proper channels to preserve tradition AND follow the laws of the church.

The real heroes are the hundreds of diocesan and religious priests who requested a celebret for the 1962 missal and received it.

The real heroes are the men of the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.

Sorry, but there are HUNDREDS of faithful priests who preserved tradition BUT respected the laws of the Holy Church. Fr. Gruner ignored the laws that justly applied to him. He is no hero at all.

And in answer to your question on Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict: the answer is they NEVER claimed the old Mass was abrogated, so they neither were mistaken, evil or cowards.

I answered your question…how about you answer mine:
“So, if we suppose that Fr. Gruner is correct then Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and all the members of the Apostolic Signatura, are all either 1. Mistaken, 2. Evil, or 3. Cowards.”

 

[Shoshana]

In a letter from 1989 she wrote the following about the various Consecrations done over the years by the Popes.
On Oct. 31, 1942, His Holiness Pius XII made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I answered “NO,” because it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.
Later, on May 13, 1967, His Holiness Paul VI made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I responded “NO,” for the same reason, it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.
On May 13, 1982, His Holiness John Paul II made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made. I responded “NO.” It was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.
Then this same Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world asking them to unite with him. He sent for the statute of Our Lady of Fátima – the one from the little Chapel to be taken to Rome and on March 25, 1984 - publicly - with the bishops who wanted to unite with His Holiness, made the Consecration as Our Lady requested. They then asked me if it was made as Our Lady requested, and I said, “YES.” Now it was made.

ewtn.com/entrustment/history.htm

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Let me ask this question.

What does it matter if Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary or not?

After all, Fatima is a private revelation and is not a de fide of the faith.

No faithful Catholic is required to believe in any private revelation.

That is part of what bothers me about Fr Gruner. He seems to want to raise Fatima to a dogma of the Church.

It matters because the Mother of God requested that it be done and detailed dire consequences if it wasn’t. And it was accompanied by one of the greatest miracles since biblical times. I’m assuming heaven doesn’t send requests to men for the heck of it.

And of course its not a dogma.

 

[Mijoy2]

It matters because the Mother of God requested that it be done and detailed dire consequences if it wasn’t. And it was accompanied by one of the greatest miracles since biblical times. I’m assuming heaven doesn’t send requests to men for the heck of it.

And of course its not a dogma.

It’s been 91 years since Fatima. No chastisment as of yet.

I found this definition of consecration on the web:

a solemn commitment of your life or your time to some cherished purpose

In the first place, how can anyone “consecrate” for someone else? Doesn’t Russia need to consecrate Russia. How does a third party consecrate for two other parties? Am I the only one who seems to think this consecration is a technicality? Russia/World World/Russia, why would this matter to Our Lady?

It almost sounds like office or schoolyard bickering…he said she said. Maybe the work of the devil is to make Catholics look foolish to our Protestant brother and sisters who mostly believe all apparitions are work of the devil.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

So, if we suppose that Fr. Gruner is correct then Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and all the members of the Apostolic Signatura, are all either 1. Mistaken, 2. Evil, or 3. Cowards. I think we can rationally throw out options 2 and 3 so that leaves us with option 1. Mistaken. Now, maybe I’m just stupid and gullible, but it seems to me that rather than Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and all the members of the Apostolic Signatura ALL being mistaken, perhaps it is just as likely that Fr. Gruner and his little website are the one’s who are actually mistaken. So, the prudential decision is with whom should we side? I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe it’s not too smart to side with the priest who violates canon law.

Fr. Gruner should take a page out of St. Pio’s book and act as St. Pio did when he was told not to celebrate the sacraments publically - he obeyed.

How has Fr. Gruner violated Canon Law? Are you so sure of that because if you are not, you might not want to throw that out so carelessly. By the way, why is it so unlikely for a pope or cardinals at the Vatican to be either 1. mistaken, 2. evil, or 3. cowards? For the record, I do not accept option number 2. because it would be a rash judgement for me to do so. Do I believe there are some wicked people working behind the scenes, sure, but as for Benedict XVI (while he was Cardinal), the simple fact that his testimony on the third secret was completely different in 1984 than in 2000 leads me to believe that he was forced or coerced somehow to change his story. Pope John Paul II talked about things concerning the third secret and the message of Fatima as a whole in his sermons in 1982 and 2000 that have not been mentioned in any document released thus far (so did he just make them up or is there something we’re missing?). Comparing Fr. Gruner to St. Padre Pio? I don’t see the connection. St. Padre Pio’s stigmata was not a matter of people loosing their souls because of lack of vital information, while Fr. Gruner is simply trying to get the word out about something very crucial for us in these times. Pope John Paul II said that Fatima places and obligation on the Church!

 

[Shoshana]

Mother Angelica questions the full content of the the Secret of Fatima:
motherangelica.excerptsofinri.com/mal_2001.html

Scroll down to Fatima…it is real player for those who have it.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

:banghead: Fatima.org website is put out by Fr Gruner and his followers.
Where is the truth in reading that? Something else please.

The TRUTH doesn’t depend on subjective matters or the fact that certain cardinals or priests have slandared Fr. Gruner’s good name. His website simply presents the evidence and the arguments on both sides. READ THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!!! If you are honest and objective, you will find that the “official” story doesn’t add up.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It matters because the Mother of God requested that it be done and detailed dire consequences if it wasn’t. And it was accompanied by one of the greatest miracles since biblical times. I’m assuming heaven doesn’t send requests to men for the heck of it.

And of course its not a dogma.

So which is it? Is it private revelation and we are not required to believe in it or not?

 

[Shoshana]

How has Fr. Gruner violated Canon Law? Are you so sure of that because if you are not, you might not want to throw that out so carelessly. By the way, why is it so unlikely for a pope or cardinals at the Vatican to be either 1. mistaken, 2. evil, or 3. cowards? For the record, I do not accept option number 2. because it would be a rash judgement for me to do so. Do I believe there are some wicked people working behind the scenes, sure, but as for Benedict XVI (while he was Cardinal), the simple fact that his testimony on the third secret was completely different in 1984 than in 2000 leads me to believe that he was forced or coerced somehow to change his story. Pope John Paul II talked about things concerning the third secret and the message of Fatima as a whole in his sermons in 1982 and 2000 that have not been mentioned in any document released thus far (so did he just make them up or is there something we’re missing?). Comparing Fr. Gruner to St. Padre Pio? I don’t see the connection. St. Padre Pio’s stigmata was not a matter of people loosing their souls because of lack of vital information, while Fr. Gruner is simply trying to get the word out about something very crucial for us in these times. Pope John Paul II said that Fatima places and obligation on the Church!

The connection that should exist betwene Padre Pio and Father Gruner is obedience. Obedience is lacking in the latter case. If there was obedience even to the wishes of the Vatican, would mark him for sure a holy man. While I would hesitate very much in calling him demonic…(same sex molestation to our own young people by priests is much more demonic as there is long lasting effects, let alone loss of faith). So I would not loosely call this man evil…disobedient, yes…but demonic no!

I also know that he has not received that letter of suspension from the Vatican even if it has been published all over the internet. I know this for a fact. Reading it on the internet and having said paper in your hands is two different. Even legally, this would not fly.

 

[Sure]

How has Fr. Gruner violated Canon Law?

“1333 §1, Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits: 1° all or some of the acts of the power of order; 2° all or some of the acts of the power of governance; [and] 3° the exercise of all or some of the rights or functions attaching to an office.”

Fr. Gruner continues to celebrate Mass in direct disobedience to this canon which forbids such action.

Comparing Fr. Gruner to St. Padre Pio? I don’t see the connection.

Fr. Gruner is not obedient. St Pio was always obedient. That’s the connection.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Agreed.
Yet JPII and Sr Lucia both said it was done and completed themselves. Are they both mistaken?

Why would I investigate further when there are two impeccable first hand witnesses verifying the information?

FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS WHAT JPII SAID DURING THE 1984 CONSECRATION OF THE WORLD: “Enlighten especially the people whose consecration and entrusting you are awaiting from us.”

Now why would he say that if consecrating the world fulfilled the consecration of Russia? Also, since Russia was already consecrated by Pius XII himself, and the world was consecrated 3 or 4 different times, why all the sudden was Pope JP II’s consecration of the world any different? People, you have got to wake up and examine the evidence yourself. No man is infalliable in all he does. Either Fr. Gruner is wrong, or the Vatican officials (whoever they may be) are wrong. To figure that out, one must examine the evidence, not make blind presumptions.

 

[Shoshana]

Fr. Gruner continues to celebrate Mass in direct disobedience to this canon which forbids such action.

quote]

Is this written on paper? And was this paper sent to him directly?

 

[Shoshana]

FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS WHAT JPII SAID DURING THE 1984 CONSECRATION OF THE WORLD: “Enlighten especially the people whose consecration and entrusting you are awaiting from us.”

Now why would he say that if consecrating the world fulfilled the consecration of Russia? Also, since Russia was already consecrated by Pius XII himself, and the world was consecrated 3 or 4 different times, why all the sudden was Pope JP II’s consecration of the world any different? People, you have got to wake up and examine the evidence yourself. No man is infalliable in all he does. Either Fr. Gruner is wrong, or the Vatican officials (whoever they may be) are wrong. To figure that out, one must examine the evidence, not make blind presumptions.

In a letter from 1989 she wrote the following about the various Consecrations done over the years by the Popes. On Oct. 31, 1942, His Holiness Pius XII made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I answered “NO,” because it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.
Later, on May 13, 1967, His Holiness Paul VI made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I responded “NO,” for the same reason, it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.
***On May 13, 1982, His Holiness John Paul II made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made. I responded “NO.” It was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.
Then this same Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world asking them to unite with him. He sent for the statute of Our Lady of Fátima – the one from the little Chapel to be taken to Rome and on March 25, 1984 - publicly - with the bishops who wanted to unite with His Holiness, made the Consecration as Our Lady requested. They then asked me if it was made as Our Lady requested, and I said, “YES.” Now it was made.

---

ewtn.com/entrustment/history.htm

 

[Corki]

I scanned this thread and didn’t see these articles by Pete Vere, a canon lawyer on Fr. Gruner’s suspension.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id26.html
theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/ngruner/wanderer.html

I don’t think anyone can claim that the Apostolic Signitura didn’t confirm Fr. Gruner to be suspended. This was the Vatican’s statement on the matter:

The Apostolic Signatura is well within its jurisdiction to uphold the previous ruling and did so. If some of you want to argue that they had no right to do it, then good luck with that. Hopefully, you’re not wrong.

Thanks, Bear for posting the Wanderer link. It may be the closest we get to “unbiased”. The Wanderer is not exactly a liberal rag nor prone to kowtow to the heirarchy when it disagrees. (These guys are on the same side as Gruner when it comes to “pro multis” and whether the missal of 1962 was ever abrogagted) Yet they state:

To refresh our memories, Fr. Gruner was ordered by his legitimate ecclesiastical superior to return to the diocese of his incardination. Keep in mind that he made a solemn promise or vow to serve this diocese when he was ordained. He was also warned that failure to return to his diocese of incardination would result in his suspension a divinis.

He did not undertake the action required of him, and subsequently his competent ecclesiastical superior followed through with the threatened suspension.

So he was not suspended for not being incardinated, as Pax asserted. He was suspended while he was incardinated due to disobediance to his superior. His suspension further resulted in his lack of incardination which exacerbates by continuing to celebrate the Sacraments.

Fatima is private revelation. There is plenty of room for disagreement. It doesn’t matter who is wrong about Fatima - at least in terms of Fr. Gruner’s status. He can be “right” on everything but if he is being disobedient, he is still not a priest in good standing. Which was, after all, the OP’s original question.

We may have scared him/her off with 8 pages of responses to what he/she probably thought was a simple question.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Fancy that…you are very wrong. Wherever did you get that idea. :hypno:

So glad you asked!

fatimacrusader.com/crintro/crintropg62.asp

 

[Shoshana]

Thanks, Bear for posting the Wanderer link. It may be the closest we get to “unbiased”. The Wanderer is not exactly a liberal rag nor prone to kowtow to the heirarchy when it disagrees. (These guys are on the same side as Gruner when it comes to “pro multis” and whether the missal of 1962 was ever abrogagted) Yet they state:

So he was not suspended for not being incardinated, as Pax asserted. He was suspended while he was incardinated due to disobediance to his superior. His suspension further resulted in his lack of incardination which exacerbates by continuing to celebrate the Sacraments.

Fatima is private revelation. There is plenty of room for disagreement. It doesn’t matter who is wrong about Fatima - at least in terms of Fr. Gruner’s status. He can be “right” on everything but is he is being disobedient, he is still not a priest in good standing. Which was, after all, the OP’s original question.

True. I also know of many disobedient priests in my diocese who do not listen to their bishop. As well as in Hamilton, where Bishop Tonnos will call a police to remove a priest from hsi parish because he disobeyed his Bishop. Obedience is mandatory. Holiness, slowly follows suit.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

It’s been 91 years since Fatima. No chastisment as of yet.

I found this definition of consecration on the web:

a solemn commitment of your life or your time to some cherished purpose

In the first place, how can anyone “consecrate” for someone else? Doesn’t Russia need to consecrate Russia. How does a third party consecrate for two other parties? Am I the only one who seems to think this consecration is a technicality? Russia/World World/Russia, why would this matter to Our Lady?

It almost sounds like office or schoolyard bickering…he said she said. Maybe the work of the devil is to make Catholics look foolish to our Protestant brother and sisters who mostly believe all apparitions are work of the devil.

When parents baptize an infant they do it for the infant as he cannot do it for himself. Pope Pius XII consecrated the world and so did John Paul II. They obviously had no issue with consecrating something.

In order to consecrate something you name it. Pope Pius XII did consecrate the world and Sister Lucy said that did not suffice; that Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated. When heaven requests something, they don’t necessarily expect us mortals to just change it around to our liking. If you don’t like the specifics of the request, take it up with Our Lady (I assume she knows what she is doing when it comes to asking for consecrations).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

So which is it? Is it private revelation and we are not required to believe in it or not?

Obviously it is private revelation and we are not required to believe in it. However, since it has been accompanied by one of the greatest miracles of all time as validation, and has been approved by the Church, and two of the three seers have been canonized, I actually believe it was a genuine apparition and the request was real. Once that is concluded, I then go on to believe that a request from heaven should be fulfilled.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Let me ask this question.

What does it matter if Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary or not?

After all, Fatima is a private revelation and is not a de fide of the faith.

No faithful Catholic is required to believe in any private revelation.

That is part of what bothers me about Fr Gruner. He seems to want to raise Fatima to a dogma of the Church.

Fatima is not a Dogma of the Faith, true, but it is either false or true, no? If it is false, then, oh well I guess every pope that has approved it was mistaken. But if it is true, WHY NOT believe it and act upon it??? What do we have to lose if we at least try to obey the requests Our Lady made? You do realize that 70,000 + people (believers and unbelievers) witnessed the miracle of the sun on Oct. 13, 1917 don’t you? It seems that God was trying to get the attention of more than just 3 children. So classifing it merely as a “private revelation” is misleading in a way, because the message was addressed to the Church and the world, not just 3 seers.

 

[LilyM]

Obviously it is private revelation and we are not required to believe in it. However, since it has been accompanied by one of the greatest miracles of all time as validation, and has been approved by the Church, and two of the three seers have been canonized, I actually believe it was a genuine apparition and the request was real. Once that is concluded, I then go on to believe that a request from heaven should be fulfilled.

And I believe that JP2 and those close to him, and Sr Lucia and those close to her, are in a MUCH better position than either you or Fr Gruner and his followers to determine whether it HAS indeed been fulfilled.

And they seem to have determined that it has indeed been fulfilled. I can’t believe that JP2, as devoted as he was to Our Lady of Fatima, wouldn’t have redone the consecration if Sr Lucia had honestly said that it was necessary.