Fr. Nicholas Gruner

Brennan_Doherty · Dec 19, 2007

ByzCath said:
So then your answers to my questions are that Sr Lucia is wrong and that Russia is not part of the world.

I think I will stand with Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia on this though.

Gee, ByzCath, Russia is a part of the world. So no, I didn’t say Russia wasn’t part of the world. Nice try, though. It’s just that when heaven asks for something to be done heaven expects to be obeyed.

Remember the story of Naaman the Leper in 2 Kings 5? How he was told to dip in the Jordan river seven times but he was offended because why couldn’t he just dip himself in one of the rivers of Damascus? Well, according to the obedience some think ought to be accorded to the Blessed Virgin’s request Naaman should have been able to dip in a Damascus river. After all, it’s a river too. And isn’t insisting on the Jordan just being nitpicky? Yet we all know what happened in the end.

I am not calling Pope John Paul II wrong because I don’t know of any instance where he said the 1984 consecration sufficed. I am not calling Sister Lucia wrong because I am highly skeptical of the purported typewewritten letter from her reversing her previous position.

fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox2.asp

jj2011 · Dec 19, 2007

Brennan_Doherty said:
Gee, ByzCath, Russia is a part of the world. So no, I didn’t say Russia wasn’t part of the world.

Yes, I think it can be safely syllogized that Russia is part of the world. Even before 1984, there were papal consecrations of the world to the Immaculate Heart. Pius XII even consecrated Russia, but without participation of the episcopate.

Let the rosary crusade grow and expand. This is more important than what are essentially ad hominem issues related to Fr Gruner’s status.

Brennan_Doherty · Dec 19, 2007

jj2011 said:
Yes, I think it can be safely syllogized that Russia is part of the world. Even before 1984, there were papal consecrations of the world to the Immaculate Heart. Pius XII even consecrated Russia, but without participation of the episcopate.

Let the rosary crusade grow and expand. This is more important than what are essentially ad hominem issues related to Fr Gruner’s status.

Yes, the world was consecrated before 1984 and Sister Lucia explicitly said those consecrations were not valid.

I hope the rosary crusade does grow. And I agree that ad hominem issues related to Fr. Gruner’s status are ultimately irrelevant to more important issues.

qui_est_ce · Dec 19, 2007

Brennan_Doherty said:
Gee, ByzCath, Russia is a part of the world. So no, I didn’t say Russia wasn’t part of the world. Nice try, though. It’s just that when heaven asks for something to be done heaven expects to be obeyed.

“Heaven” did not ask for something, it was a private revelation.

Brennan_Doherty said:
I am not calling Pope John Paul II wrong because I don’t know of any instance where he said the 1984 consecration sufficed. I am not calling Sister Lucia wrong because I am highly skeptical of the purported typewewritten letter from her reversing her previous position.

fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox2.asp

Have you considered getting your facts from a more balanced source?

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1343984/posts

Everything you have referenced is linked to this Gruner guy. I’m even embarassed to call him “Father” anymore, because he is a disgrace to faithful priests all over the world What do you think Father Ragheed would have said about this?
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/145921?eng=y

Brennan_Doherty said:
Instances of Sr. Lucia purportedly saying the consecration was accepted (and thus completely reversing her stance on prior consecrations of the world) are hotly disputed, and with good reason.

You are simply wrong. The only person "hotly disputing the consecrations is Gruner and his minions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia
Controversy in Roman Catholicism
Pope Pius XII also specifically consecrated the Peoples of Russia to the Immmaculate Heart of Mary by his apostolic letter Sacro Vergente Anno of 1952.

It is believed by some that Lúcia Santos, one of the seers of the Fatima apparitions, said that the consecration requested by the Virgin Mary was fulfilled and accepted in heaven, and that everyone should live out the consecration personally by faithfully wearing the Brown Scapular.

[edit] Russian Orthodox objections
Members of the Russian Orthodox Church object to the concept of the Consecration of Russia for two reasons: (1) Russia has already been Christian for over one thousand years, and has a great devotion to the Theotokos, and (2) the concept contains what appears to be an implicit proselytism of Russian Orthodox Christians to the Roman Catholic faith. Orthodox apologists point out that Russia was still an Orthodox nation at the time, and was not yet under the control of the militant atheist Bolsheviks. Thus the phrase “Russia will be converted” can only imply conversion from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism.

jj2011 · Dec 19, 2007

Brennan_Doherty said:
Yes, the world was consecrated before 1984 and Sister Lucia explicitly said those consecrations were not valid.

I hope the rosary crusade does grow. And I agree that ad hominem issues related to Fr. Gruner’s status are ultimately irrelevant to more important issues.

Clarification. I didn’t mean to support the inference that the consecration was done, but rather that we’re in a mess and that, to quote Our Lady of Fatima, “only she can help us.”

jj2011 · Dec 19, 2007

qui_est_ce said:
The only person "hotly disputing the consecrations is Gruner and his minions.

I don’t recall any passages from the Gospels or catechisms encouraging us to refer to other members of the mystical body of Christ as “minions.”

FATIMAisUrgent · Dec 20, 2007

This will probably have to be my last post on this thread. I have tried to defend Fr. Gruner’s good name and inform people about things concerning the Fatima message that are not widely known. I feel all I can do now is pray and try elsewhere. I must say the lack of charity from some on this thread is very disheartening. Below I have posted some relevant information that some of you might benefit from. For those of you who are so sure that Fr. Gruner and those who defend his work are wrong, then I ask why his persecutors only rely on empty accusations and silence, instead of hard facts and a simple explanation of why Fr. Gruner has been suspended? The answer is because the tactic of spreading lies and hiding behind some unnamed “higher authority” is much more effective in destroying someone’s character. The less questions asked, the easier to push the agenda through. Fr. Gruner recieved an apostolic blessing from Pope John Paul II for his work in 1993 and he was eventually incardinated by the Archbishop of Hyderabad, even after attempts to block that incardination. His former bishop was pressured to order him back to Italy, though at the same time neglecting to provide him with health benefits and other things required by Italian Law since Fr. Gruner is not a legal citizen. So basically Fr. Gruner was being told to return to Italy as an illegal immigrant. The absurdities go on, and on, but that is enough for this thread. Now I must go and shake the dust of my feet.

The Fatima Center’s
official 100-word statement
concerning Father Gruner’s
so-called "suspension"
The law of God and Canon Law itself states clearly (see Canons 221, 1321 and 1323) that no priest in the Catholic Church can be suspended a divinis, or penalized with any other ecclesiastical penalty, if that priest has not committed a crime or transgression of Church law or precept.

Since no such crime or transgression has ever been committed by or attributed to Father Gruner, it is absolutely clear and certain that he is not suspended from the priesthood. Anyone, of any rank whatsoever, who says he is suspended is either ignorant of the facts, misled or outright malicious.

Here’s a few of the FAQs about Fr. Gruner from his website:

2)Why is Father Gruner residing in Canada if he was ordained in Italy?

In 1978 Father Gruner was given written permission by the Bishop of Avellino, Italy, to reside in Canada after Father Gruner decided that he did not wish to pursue membership in the Franciscan community he had originally intended to join in Italy. Due to the language barrier, there was no real canonical mission for Father Gruner as a parish priest in Avellino. So, Father Gruner returned to Canada, where he became involved in his current apostolate.

(4) Isn’t Father Gruner a suspended priest?

No, Father Gruner is not suspended. It is true that certain members of the Vatican bureaucracy opposed to Father Gruner’s work have pressured the Bishop of Avellino to order him back to Avellino, under threat of suspension–after an approved absence of 20 years! But Father Gruner has appealed that plainly unjust order, and during the appeal (which is still pending) no threatened suspension can take effect, under the Code of Canon Law. Thus, Father Gruner remains a priest in good standing under the law of the Church.
It should be noted that Father Gruner was ostensibly recalled to Avellino because he had “failed” to obey an order that he find another bishop. In truth, Father Gruner found three other bishops to sponsor him in their dioceses, but each one was dissuaded from accepting him by the same two Vatican Archbishops who are trying to force him back to Avellino. Thus, the same two Vatican bureaucrats who accuse Father Gruner of “disobeying” the order to find another bishop, are preventing him from obeying the order.

(5) Isn’t Father Gruner operating without permission of Church authorities?

No permission is needed in the first place! The 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II gives priests and laity the right to form private apostolates without any permission of ecclesiastical authority whatsoever. (See Canons 212-228, 278, and 299) There are many private apostolates in the Church today which issue publications, conduct conferences, and raise funds without any “permission” from Church authorities, and Father Gruner’s apostolate is just one of them.

Brennan_Doherty · Dec 20, 2007

qui_est_ce said:
“Heaven” did not ask for something, it was a private revelation.

Have you considered getting your facts from a more balanced source?

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1343984/posts

Everything you have referenced is linked to this Gruner guy. I’m even embarassed to call him “Father” anymore, because he is a disgrace to faithful priests all over the world What do you think Father Ragheed would have said about this?
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/145921?eng=y
You are simply wrong. The only person "hotly disputing the consecrations is Gruner and his minions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia
Controversy in Roman Catholicism
Pope Pius XII also specifically consecrated the Peoples of Russia to the Immmaculate Heart of Mary by his apostolic letter Sacro Vergente Anno of 1952.

It is believed by some that Lúcia Santos, one of the seers of the Fatima apparitions, said that the consecration requested by the Virgin Mary was fulfilled and accepted in heaven, and that everyone should live out the consecration personally by faithfully wearing the Brown Scapular.

[edit] Russian Orthodox objections
Members of the Russian Orthodox Church object to the concept of the Consecration of Russia for two reasons: (1) Russia has already been Christian for over one thousand years, and has a great devotion to the Theotokos, and (2) the concept contains what appears to be an implicit proselytism of Russian Orthodox Christians to the Roman Catholic faith. Orthodox apologists point out that Russia was still an Orthodox nation at the time, and was not yet under the control of the militant atheist Bolsheviks. Thus the phrase “Russia will be converted” can only imply conversion from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism.

Okay, the Blessed Virgin Mary requested the consecration and Fatima was reinforced by one of the greatest public miracles of all time. Since the Blessed Virgin Mary was obeying God and came from heaven I use the word “heaven” sometimes when describing the request.

If you want to dispute Christopher Ferrara’s article I linked to, be my guest. People argue for specific points of view all the time. If I got a new website and posted Christopher Ferrara’s article to it then would you address the article based on its merit?

I agree with the last part of your post that the Russian Orthodox would have objections to the consecrations. And…? I’m pretty sure the Blessed Virgin Mary realized that and yet she asked for the consecration anyway. God bless.

FATIMAisUrgent · Dec 20, 2007

One more point for those who insist that Fatima is just as irrelevant as any other private revelation. If it wasn’t from Heaven, then it was from the devil. But the Church’s approval and Pope John Paul II’s statements say otherwise.

From FAQ on Fr. Gruner

(10) But isn’t the Message of Fatima just a private revelation anyway?

Hardly! The Message of Fatima was confirmed as worthy of belief by an unprecedented public miracle–the Miracle of the Sun–witnessed by 70,000 people, both believers and unbelievers, at precisely the time the Fatima seers said it would occur. Pope John Paul II, who was shot on the very anniversary of the first apparition at Fatima, publicly credited Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life, and declared in his address at Fatima the following year that the Message of Fatima “imposes an obligation on the Church” and is “more relevant today than when Our Lady appeared …”
As the great Bishop Rudolf Graber of Germany observed, “[T]here exists the cliche: ‘It is only a private revelation’, with which Fatima is lightly brushed aside … [but] a careful distinction should be made between personal revelations directed solely toward the recipients of the message, and those where the message is declared to be for mankind at large. The former can with equanimity be ignored, but the latter must be taken seriously, and Fatima belongs to this category!” Our Lady gave Her Message at Fatima, along with its grave warnings, to the whole world. In this time of grave crisis for the world, it would be the height of folly to dismiss the Message of Fatima as a mere private revelation.

AlexV · Dec 20, 2007

We can stop with Gruner after the first major issue is mentioned: his status in the Diocese of Avellino, Italy.

He was ordained there. Period. He promised obedience to the bishop there AND HIS SUCCESSORS.

It is true that in 1978 he was given permission to work in Canada. Good for him. Perhaps the bishop was happy to see him on another continent.

But later, he was called back. Guess what? He refused to go. His big justification? He doesn’t speak Italian (note: he’s had 30 years to learn it).

Does God speak to Gruner? Does Mary? Some think so. Guess what? God doesn’t counsel disobedience to LAWFUL authority. Gruner’s bishop asked him to come back. Apparently Gruner thinks God (and Mary) prefer he stay in his native Canada, churning out trash magazines.

ac_claire · Dec 20, 2007

Brennan_Doherty said:
Yes, the world was consecrated before 1984 and Sister Lucia explicitly said those consecrations were not valid.

I hope the rosary crusade does grow. And I agree that ad hominem issues related to Fr. Gruner’s status are ultimately irrelevant to more important issues.

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”?

Jenny_Z · Dec 20, 2007

LilyM said:
And yet this is precisely what WAS done by so many of the visionary Saints - St Padre Pio for just one. He was wrongfully suspended from his duties for a time. He obeyed and held no more Masses, though, until he was exonerated and reinstated. In this he imitated Christ, who was unjustly accused but remained silent, even when on trial for His very life. And St Padre Pio was rewarded for his obedience - did he not bear the stigmata??

I like how the folks saying that disobedience to the Magesterium is ok have glossed over this quote, twice…

ncjohn · Dec 20, 2007

Jenny_Z said:
I like how the folks saying that disobedience to the Magesterium is ok have glossed over this quote, twice…

I too have been troubled by this. And by what I see as a disturbing trend by many who identify themselves as “traditionalist”.

At the time of the Apostles a great many were led astray by the Gnostics who linked salvation to having “secret knowledge” that the rest didn’t have.

At the time of the reformation, many were led astray by those who would not accept the authority of the Church and who, rather than correcting the legiitmate abuses from within the structure, chose to separate from the Church.

I see correlaries to both here, and in some other similar subjects being discussed in the “traditional Catholicism” forum. First we have a priest who is, without dispute, being disobedient to the Church. One can argue whether the suspension–just as with LeFebvre–was or is legitimate, but in the end it is the Church that has to be the arbiter. No great saint ever stood in opposition and separated themselves from the Church, but instead stood by even her unjust condemnations and endured. Since God promised the indefectibility of the Church, even in her missteps she will survive and prevail, hopefully correcting errant judgments over time.

That some see it as ok to reject the Church’s authority, and make their own decisions as to what is authoritative and what is just, I find deeply troubling, for it is exactly what has separated “reformers” and dissidents throughout the ages. History is littered with those who thought their judgments higher than that of the Church and those who did not ultimately reconcile are left to God’s mercy in judging their motivations. What is more troubling though is that it is often these very same people who decry when others question the authority or judgments of Popes that they consider “ok”. They implicitly say that THEY have the ability and authority to decide which Popes and councils and which teachings and disciplines are valid and which aren’t, but then say that others aren’t qualified to do so. To me, we either depend on personal authority and revelation, as the Protestants have always claimed, or we stand with the Church while working to correct those things we may question. To me there is a great degree of hypocrisy in trying to take the personal authority position while denying it to others.

I trust the Church’s judgment in proclaiming Fatima to be worthy of belief, while at the same time binding no one to accept the revelation. I have visited there several times and have found a great sense of peace there. But all these conspiracy theories being promulgated by a disobedient priest, and backed by those claiming to be the “informed few”, is really just dressed-up gnosticism as far as I can see. NONE of the revelation is binding on our salvation and whether one thinks specific pieces of the revelation have been distorted are really, in the end, irrelevant.

The determination to discredit the Church in claiming that it is hiding pieces which both the Pope and Sr. Lucia claim have been revealed does not sound like the acts of faithful sons and daughters. It is easy to become drawn in and obsessed by conspiracy theories, and I fear a great many are doing so, quite likely including Fr. Gruner. As it causes great division and question of the revelation, I personally find it very hard to believe that that could be from God as God does not contradict Himself. And Jesus himself told us that we were to be obedient to lawful authority, even if we did not imitate what they did, so Fr. Gruner’s stance in this does not seem reconcilable to the gospel, much less to the Church.

Very troubling I find it…

Sure · Dec 20, 2007

AlexV said:
We can stop with Gruner after the first major issue is mentioned: his status in the Diocese of Avellino, Italy.

He was ordained there. Period. He promised obedience to the bishop there AND HIS SUCCESSORS.

It is true that in 1978 he was given permission to work in Canada. Good for him. Perhaps the bishop was happy to see him on another continent.

But later, he was called back. Guess what? He refused to go. His big justification? He doesn’t speak Italian (note: he’s had 30 years to learn it).

Does God speak to Gruner? Does Mary? Some think so. Guess what? God doesn’t counsel disobedience to LAWFUL authority. Gruner’s bishop asked him to come back. Apparently Gruner thinks God (and Mary) prefer he stay in his native Canada, churning out trash magazines.

Fr. Gruner is definitely guided by a spirit, but that spirit is not the Holy Spirit - only Satan calls people to separate themselves from the Church.

I still want to know where the money goes! Does anyone know if Gruner operates a charity in the US and if so, what is the name of it. Of course their website contains no real legal information at all.

Anonymous2 · Dec 20, 2007

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.

Our Lady asked for Russia’s consecration in union with all the world’s bishops.
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.

The Blessed Virgin said that if Russia were consecrated, Russia would be converted to the Faith.
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.

In order to consecrate a country, one must actually pronounce its name.
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.

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.
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.

Sister Lucia spoke of part of the 3rd Secret as involving Portugal preserving the dogma of the Faith.
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