L
Like
Guest
osenorman
Source Please?
Source Please?
- Status
V
Victorious
Guest
Undoubtedly, Fr. Gruner himself.
A couple of things I note about the apologetics for Fr. Gruner.
(1) I see a lot of “his suspension isn’t valid, so he’s not really suspended”-type comments. That’s like saying, “he shouldn’t be in jail, so in fact he’s not really in jail.” The guy in jail is in fact in jail, whether he should be or not, and we must treat him accordingly. The same with a priest under suspension. Whether he should be suspended or not is not something we are competent to decide or do anything about, other than pray. The fact remains he is under suspension, and we must treat him accordingly. That means we can’t have recourse to him for the Sacraments, except in danger of death; and if we think he is getting a bum rap, to pray for his situation to be straightened up.
(2) I can’t help comparing Fr. Gruner’s behavior unfavorably with that of Padre Pio, who was placed under severe restrictions that he bore silently with patience and humility.
L
Like
Guest
I believe your right as all the prove is copy & paste of the very ones in question.
If I’m wrong in siding with the Church & therefore committing a mortal sin, then I’m well on my way to hell.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
By the way, people have been asking me for some sources to back up my belief that there were two Sister Lucia’s. Well, I was looking around the other day and found just what I was looking for. This is more than just interent sources, this is what I believe to be proof. Here’s the first link.
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm
This link shows the differences between the first and second Lucia. Some good points are raised with this link. And if the first link doesn’t convince you, then the second one will. The Carmelite monastery where she was a nun has her death listed as 1949, which I found to be very surprising. Anyway, while on the second link scroll down to death #265 and there you will see for yourself.
traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/MonialesDefunctae.tpl
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm
This link shows the differences between the first and second Lucia. Some good points are raised with this link. And if the first link doesn’t convince you, then the second one will. The Carmelite monastery where she was a nun has her death listed as 1949, which I found to be very surprising. Anyway, while on the second link scroll down to death #265 and there you will see for yourself.
traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/MonialesDefunctae.tpl
V
Victorious
Guest
You mean you believed before you had proof? Now that is cutting-edge! :knight2:
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
No. Doing research on it was how I began believing that there were two Sister Lucia’s. This isn’t about when I started believing though. It’s about the links I just posted on the subject.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Yes it is, and he mentioned that.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Hello, Victorious. I think that is a very valid comment. However, there is an answer, which I personally have found convincing.
Padre Pio was a Capuchin Franciscan under a particular vow of obedience; Fr Gruner is a diocesan priest, and I am a layman. The situations are different.
A Religious has taken a particular vow to give up forever his freedom of action, including his judgment. He does this for a variety of reasons, one of which is to save his own soul, as this is the most direct route to Heaven. If his superior happens to be manifestly unjust (and I am not jumping to conclusions about either particular priest at this point) and if he simply offers it up, he will be very closely united to ‘Our Lord Before the Unjust Judges’; and because to accept unjust defamation and punishment is, the saints tell us, the furthest possible from human nature, the reward is correspondingly all the greater. Yet this voluntary immolation of the will and the intellect requires,*** as an absolutely essential corollary,***** the vow of chastity. **
Why?
In the first place, Fr Gruner as a diocesan priest is not under a personal vow of obedience to the Cardinal who issued that suspension. On the contrary, he is entitled through common justice – not to mention Church Law – to a canonical appeal. Not only are the grounds of the suspension manifestly spurious, but his canonical request for an appeal has been denied. Yet “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
Likewise, In my own case, (just to keep it personal, for the Forum) as a family man,*** I have not the privilege*** of letting someone else run roughshod over decisions which I am required to make by the Marriage Vow, as head of my family and primary educator of my children. In questions that pertain to the Faith, “I must obey God before Man”. The Fr Gruner case is a transparent attempt to silence the most courageous priest who is telling the truth about Fatima. If he is wrong, let him be shown where: but let them not think they can distort the Law, and bully the likes of me, by these sophisms.
The reality of the Church at the moment is that She is in a State of Emergency. The letter of the Law is being misapplied to subvert the real point of the Law.
By the Church’s own laws, this is null and void.
Padre Pio was a Capuchin Franciscan under a particular vow of obedience; Fr Gruner is a diocesan priest, and I am a layman. The situations are different.
A Religious has taken a particular vow to give up forever his freedom of action, including his judgment. He does this for a variety of reasons, one of which is to save his own soul, as this is the most direct route to Heaven. If his superior happens to be manifestly unjust (and I am not jumping to conclusions about either particular priest at this point) and if he simply offers it up, he will be very closely united to ‘Our Lord Before the Unjust Judges’; and because to accept unjust defamation and punishment is, the saints tell us, the furthest possible from human nature, the reward is correspondingly all the greater. Yet this voluntary immolation of the will and the intellect requires,*** as an absolutely essential corollary,***** the vow of chastity. **
Why?
In the first place, Fr Gruner as a diocesan priest is not under a personal vow of obedience to the Cardinal who issued that suspension. On the contrary, he is entitled through common justice – not to mention Church Law – to a canonical appeal. Not only are the grounds of the suspension manifestly spurious, but his canonical request for an appeal has been denied. Yet “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
Likewise, In my own case, (just to keep it personal, for the Forum) as a family man,*** I have not the privilege*** of letting someone else run roughshod over decisions which I am required to make by the Marriage Vow, as head of my family and primary educator of my children. In questions that pertain to the Faith, “I must obey God before Man”. The Fr Gruner case is a transparent attempt to silence the most courageous priest who is telling the truth about Fatima. If he is wrong, let him be shown where: but let them not think they can distort the Law, and bully the likes of me, by these sophisms.
The reality of the Church at the moment is that She is in a State of Emergency. The letter of the Law is being misapplied to subvert the real point of the Law.
By the Church’s own laws, this is null and void.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
An update, from
Pope Benedict “Reopens the File” on the Third Secret of Fatima
fatimaperspectives.com/gn/perspective604.asp
by Christopher A. Ferrara May 24, 2010
Within days after the Fatima Challenge conference …] none other than Pope Benedict XVI clearly, calmly, and deliberately reopened the entire Third Secret controversy. He did so by demolishing the Sodano / Bertone “interpretation” of the vision of the “Bishop dressed in White” as involving nothing more than 20th century events, including the 1981 assassination attempt, which “belong to the past.” A few points are in order:
…]
In his homily at the Mass to commemorate the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition on May 13, the Pope declared: “One would be deceived who thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.” (“Si illuderebbe chi pensasse che la missione profetica di Fatima sia conclusa.”) I suppose it is typical of Vatican bureaucratic maneuvering that the English translation of the homily neuters the Pope’s words to read: "We would be mistaken to think that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded." No, the Pope said that one who thinks this would be * deceived,* not merely “mistaken,” and he referred to particular individuals, not “we” in general. So much for the Sodano/Bertone “interpretation” of the vision as belonging “to the past.” It now joins other pseudo-official pronouncements in the discard bin of the post-Vatican II era in the Church. The Pope has completely repudiated his own adherence to the “party line” dictated by the Secretary of State, which he followed as the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whose theological commentary on the vision declared that* “we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: '… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima … belong to the past.”*
Thirdly, the vision of the “Bishop dressed in White” does not in any way depict activities by internal enemies of the Church who are sinners. Quite the contrary, it depicts the execution of a future Pope and members of the hierarchy who are martyrs, not sinners, by clearly external enemies in the form of a band of soldiers. Hence the Pope has to be referring to something that goes beyond the text of the vision standing alone. Indeed, only one thing could harmonize the vision, with its depiction of external persecution, with an internal subversion/persecution of the Church: a text in which the Virgin explains how a crisis within the Church leads to a chastisement of the Pope and the Church as seen in the vision, accompanied by a chastisement of the whole world, as the half-ruined city filled with bodies would indicate. Here I note that at the Fatima Challenge conference the Vaticanist Giuseppe De Carli, a collaborator with Cardinal Bertone in the now-discredited “official version,” referred to the bodies seen in the vision as * carbonizzati — charred! Where did he acquire that alarming detail?*
Rejoicing in this victory for the truth, Antonio Socci writes that the Pope
Noting that the Secretary of State has simply ignored the import of that warning while pretending that the Secret “belongs to the past,” Socci calls this
Pope Benedict “Reopens the File” on the Third Secret of Fatima
fatimaperspectives.com/gn/perspective604.asp
by Christopher A. Ferrara May 24, 2010
Within days after the Fatima Challenge conference …] none other than Pope Benedict XVI clearly, calmly, and deliberately reopened the entire Third Secret controversy. He did so by demolishing the Sodano / Bertone “interpretation” of the vision of the “Bishop dressed in White” as involving nothing more than 20th century events, including the 1981 assassination attempt, which “belong to the past.” A few points are in order:
…]
In his homily at the Mass to commemorate the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition on May 13, the Pope declared: “One would be deceived who thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.” (“Si illuderebbe chi pensasse che la missione profetica di Fatima sia conclusa.”) I suppose it is typical of Vatican bureaucratic maneuvering that the English translation of the homily neuters the Pope’s words to read: "We would be mistaken to think that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded." No, the Pope said that one who thinks this would be * deceived,* not merely “mistaken,” and he referred to particular individuals, not “we” in general. So much for the Sodano/Bertone “interpretation” of the vision as belonging “to the past.” It now joins other pseudo-official pronouncements in the discard bin of the post-Vatican II era in the Church. The Pope has completely repudiated his own adherence to the “party line” dictated by the Secretary of State, which he followed as the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whose theological commentary on the vision declared that* “we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: '… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima … belong to the past.”*
Thirdly, the vision of the “Bishop dressed in White” does not in any way depict activities by internal enemies of the Church who are sinners. Quite the contrary, it depicts the execution of a future Pope and members of the hierarchy who are martyrs, not sinners, by clearly external enemies in the form of a band of soldiers. Hence the Pope has to be referring to something that goes beyond the text of the vision standing alone. Indeed, only one thing could harmonize the vision, with its depiction of external persecution, with an internal subversion/persecution of the Church: a text in which the Virgin explains how a crisis within the Church leads to a chastisement of the Pope and the Church as seen in the vision, accompanied by a chastisement of the whole world, as the half-ruined city filled with bodies would indicate. Here I note that at the Fatima Challenge conference the Vaticanist Giuseppe De Carli, a collaborator with Cardinal Bertone in the now-discredited “official version,” referred to the bodies seen in the vision as * carbonizzati — charred! Where did he acquire that alarming detail?*
Rejoicing in this victory for the truth, Antonio Socci writes that the Pope
Noting that the Secretary of State has simply ignored the import of that warning while pretending that the Secret “belongs to the past,” Socci calls this
Socci is right to say that the Pope has “reopened the file in a way so precise and dramatic that those who in recent years have paid homage to the Curial version find themselves in a panic…”
Indeed they are. But then, what else could one expect, given that the Message of Fatima in general and the Third Secret in particular were consigned to the Church by the Mother of God on the authority of Her divine Son? Given its divine origin, the prophetic mission of Fatima — which *continues, *as our Pope declares — will be accomplished, no matter what plans to the contrary may be held by mere men.
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
DECLARATION ON SUSPENDED PRIEST
Congregation for the Clergy
On 13 September 2001, the following declaration was released by the Congregation for the Clergy. It was signed by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, congregation prefect, and by Archbishop Csaba Ternyak, secretary."The Holy See has received several news reports concerning the so-called Conference for Peace in the World, which is being planned for Rome for October 7 to 13 and which has been organized by Fr. Nicholas Gruner of Canada.
"The Congregation for the Clergy, upon the mandate from a higher authority, 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 Signature.
“The activities of Fr. Gruner, therefore, including the above-mentioned conference, do not have the approval of legitimate ecclesiastical authorities.”
More Information on Fr. Gruner ewtn.com/expert/answers/fr_gruner_old.htm
Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:
The Cathedral Foundation
L’Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
lormail@catholicreview.org
Anybody know if he was reistated? Just curious.
B
beehumble
Guest
First, the consecration has been done.
Second, when Lucia said we are walking toward it with large steps, I believe she was referring to the nuclear war she said would have occurred in 1985. But the Pope made the Act of Consecration 1984, which she said prevented the nuclear war.
Third, the pope in the vision is John Paul II.
Fourth, the vision is still relevant, and there does not have to be words associated with the third part’s vision. It stands alone. It is a summary of all that Blessed Mary said. It is a vision of all that happened before the period of peace, including the assassination attempt on the pope, and the period of peace,too. The great city half in ruins is the City of God (as in St. Augustine’s City of God book) - the community of people throughout the world who worship and love God. The persecutions of atheistic Russia (the nation mentioned and associated with Fatima) brought about great destruction against the “city of God” - as did World War II, Stalin, Mao, etc. Millions of Christians were murdered by communist (atheist) regimes. The commentary released in 2000 addressed this.
Second, when Lucia said we are walking toward it with large steps, I believe she was referring to the nuclear war she said would have occurred in 1985. But the Pope made the Act of Consecration 1984, which she said prevented the nuclear war.
Third, the pope in the vision is John Paul II.
Fourth, the vision is still relevant, and there does not have to be words associated with the third part’s vision. It stands alone. It is a summary of all that Blessed Mary said. It is a vision of all that happened before the period of peace, including the assassination attempt on the pope, and the period of peace,too. The great city half in ruins is the City of God (as in St. Augustine’s City of God book) - the community of people throughout the world who worship and love God. The persecutions of atheistic Russia (the nation mentioned and associated with Fatima) brought about great destruction against the “city of God” - as did World War II, Stalin, Mao, etc. Millions of Christians were murdered by communist (atheist) regimes. The commentary released in 2000 addressed this.
B
beehumble
Guest
Fatima is still relevant. It is the most important event in the history of man since the Apostles walked the earth.
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
It will always be relevant because it makes us examine ourselves and show us the consequences of leading a sinful life both on a personal and a global level.
B
beehumble
Guest
Timothysis said:
“Also, the tale of Pope Leo XIII is nothing more than a pious Catholic urban legend…”
While the Fatima consecration has been done and Fatima is important for other reasons, the Pope Leo vision is true. John Paul himself obliquely referenced it at least once:
Pope John Paul II mentioned it while speaking in St. Peter’s square on Sunday, April 24, 1994:
May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: “Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power” (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). **Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene **when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer to St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.
I think of John Paul as one of the greatest popes, if not the greatest pope, after Peter (in fact in her Divine Mercy diary, Faustina is given a vision of the day her work (the diary and the devotionals) are recognized by the Church, and of herself being canonized. In this vision, she sees the Pope of that day [who is John Paul, we now know] speaking with St. Peter.
John Paul healed people, stopped a storm from coming over the youth mass at the Toronto youth festival, and many other things, and in short , was a mighty man of God. If he carefully hints that Pope Leo (no slouch himself - also a very mighty man) had such a vision, I believe him.
“Also, the tale of Pope Leo XIII is nothing more than a pious Catholic urban legend…”
While the Fatima consecration has been done and Fatima is important for other reasons, the Pope Leo vision is true. John Paul himself obliquely referenced it at least once:
Pope John Paul II mentioned it while speaking in St. Peter’s square on Sunday, April 24, 1994:
May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: “Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power” (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). **Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene **when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer to St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.
I think of John Paul as one of the greatest popes, if not the greatest pope, after Peter (in fact in her Divine Mercy diary, Faustina is given a vision of the day her work (the diary and the devotionals) are recognized by the Church, and of herself being canonized. In this vision, she sees the Pope of that day [who is John Paul, we now know] speaking with St. Peter.
John Paul healed people, stopped a storm from coming over the youth mass at the Toronto youth festival, and many other things, and in short , was a mighty man of God. If he carefully hints that Pope Leo (no slouch himself - also a very mighty man) had such a vision, I believe him.
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
Thankfully, it is still said after daily mass at the churches in my area and on those rare occasions it is not, I say it anyway.
Thank you bee humble.
Pax†
B
beehumble
Guest
It says here the Pope said in this thread, "In his homily at the Mass to commemorate the anniversary of the first Fatima apparition on May 13, the Pope declared: “One would be deceived who thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.”
This is too true. At Fatima, Blessed Mary said “…she (Russia) will spread her errors throughout the world,…” Her errors refers to her atheism, her official rejection of the existence of any God, at a governmental level, which then leads to the rest of the evils that sprang from that nation.
Russia is now no longer officially atheist. Ironically, the once staunchly Christian West is now referred to in many circles as neo-pagan. Father Corapi once said something like “You shouldn’t be surprised if your government acts in a pagan manner when you elect pagans to your government.”
So the errors of Russia have spread; and as the Pope said, the prophetic mission of Fatima is not over.
This is too true. At Fatima, Blessed Mary said “…she (Russia) will spread her errors throughout the world,…” Her errors refers to her atheism, her official rejection of the existence of any God, at a governmental level, which then leads to the rest of the evils that sprang from that nation.
Russia is now no longer officially atheist. Ironically, the once staunchly Christian West is now referred to in many circles as neo-pagan. Father Corapi once said something like “You shouldn’t be surprised if your government acts in a pagan manner when you elect pagans to your government.”
So the errors of Russia have spread; and as the Pope said, the prophetic mission of Fatima is not over.
B
beehumble
Guest
But to be clear, this in no way refers to another Pope being shot or anything of that sort. And the Act of Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has been executed in full by Pope John Paul the Great.
Sister Lucia saw a Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart when she witnessed Russian atheism collapse. This Triumph is a “type” (as in typology, a tool of Biblical exegesis: see agapebiblestudy.com/documents/An%20Explaination%20of%20Biblical%20Typology.htm ).
The way Blessed Mary triumphed over the evil atheism of Russia is a preview, or “type”, of how she will triumph over evil in the world.
Sister Lucia saw a Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart when she witnessed Russian atheism collapse. This Triumph is a “type” (as in typology, a tool of Biblical exegesis: see agapebiblestudy.com/documents/An%20Explaination%20of%20Biblical%20Typology.htm ).
The way Blessed Mary triumphed over the evil atheism of Russia is a preview, or “type”, of how she will triumph over evil in the world.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Of course Pope Leo foresaw a great battle looming in the future, to mandate this prayer afrer every Mass. But that does not prove the story of the vision, does it? I personally searched very hard to find the source of the alleged Vision of the Hundred Years, the dialogue between God and the devil, etc, and could not find it. (As an aside, I found the same thing when I tried to find an authentication of the alleged prophecy of St. Nilus, which you will find tacked onto an authentic Account of his life as though it is part of it, whereas an attentive perusal will show that this is not the case …)
All I will say for now is, if anyone has any primary documentation on either of these, please post them here. In the meantime, I think it is safe to dismiss them as “urban legends”.
Look, I don’t want to open a can of worms, but Pope John Paul II was a strange enigma. I saw him in 1982 at Wembley Stadium, London, when he very clearly defied the assembled hierarchy of England by declaring to the huge assembly, “Go to Mass! Pray the Rosary! (Here he whipped out his beads)… I will lead you now!” And he led us in a decade of the Rosary. You could almost see the steam coming out of the Right Reverend ears of the bishops, and see the thought balloons, “Who will rid me of this turbulent pope?” Yet…
§He presided over innumerable vast Open Air Masses at which the Holy Eucharist was trampled into the mud (or the dust – depending). I know personally one priest who witnessed this, and spent the rest of the evening gathering the crumbs. It was only the SSPX who persuaded him to remain in the church and not become a Sedevac. In earlier Canon Law, the priest responsible was required to undergo nine years penance for each time the Holy Eucharist was allowed to fall –
§He publicly kissed the Koran.
§He organised “prayer meetings” at Assisi at which representatives of false religions – down to and including fire-worshippers – were encouraged to invoke their false gods on Catholic consecrated ground – not shrinking from removing the Blessed Sacrament from an altar so that the statue of Buddha could be installed (many have reacted with disbelief to this, but it is fully documented). Any pope before 1960 would have reacted to the very idea of these things with apoplexy – and everybody knows it –
§It was on his watch that homosexuality among the clergy became deeply entrenched – and he was sent countless dossiers on the topic, about which he did nothing –
§He was personally responsible for sheltering from the law known homosexuals (the press calls them paedophiles, but they were homosexuals) – for which other people would have been sent to prison –
I do not wish to go on, because he really did do some fine things. But…
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Very impressive. Please note that this was issued the very day after 9/11 - when Fr Gruner was organising a Peace Conference. Why was it so important to try to silence him?
It would be even more impressive if the Statement had told us exactly what he had done to be suspended for. As I mentioned on a previous posting, it is … nothing at all.
This sounds impressive, but the fact is that his peace conference required no specific approval in Canon Law. Countless other conferences were and are being carried out all the time, often explicitly repudiating the most basic of Catholic doctrines (from lesbianism to abortion and denial of the Resurrection) , and nothing whatever is being done about them. To those who follow the Vatican attentively, this statement is yet another clever (and thoroughly typical) piece of misdirection.
He applied, through the correct channels, for a Canonical appeal, and this has been ignored.
Please note: He was not
*allowed to appeal and defend his case for judgment
*told “No, we won’t hear your appeal, even though we are breaking Canon Law thereby” …
He was just left in Limbo. Then he was denounced … for being in a legal limbo.
To repeat – Vatican watchers will recognise this as a classic example of the way the Vatican deals with “troublemakers” if they can’t silence them legitimately. I hope you can see the fallacy. Accuse somebody, refuse an appeal, then tell everybody else to ostracise him because he has been accused and punished - not found guilty on the evidence, just accused and punished.
All this is perfectly in line with what we know of the part of the Third Secret in the still-unpublished ‘Capovilla Envelope’ (see earlier in this thread). I will provide some quotes in a later posting.
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
Um…this was my question, that’s all. If you are here looking for trouble then I suggest you move on. You should have stopped at bad mouthing Pope John Paul II.
- Status