M
Have you ever read this one by the same author?
I will look at it.Have you ever read this one by the same author?
thecatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2006/02/alta-vendita-and-subversion-of.html
An article that is also full of error.This is quite the article!
That’s great that you can bash Gruner. But is John Vennari a dissident priest full of error? You see, yes- it is on Gruner’s site, but it was written by Vennari.An article that is also full of error.
This article was published on the “The Fatima Crusader” website which is run by Father Nicholas Gruner, a dissident priest that is not in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church.Gruner: Not in Good Standing with the Roman Catholic Church
I don’t know who John Vennari is, but his article is full of the same paranoid claptrap that Fr. Gruner disseminates. Such as these ridiculous statements:Vatican II’s program and reforms display Liberal Catholicism’s basic components… is John Vennari a dissident priest full of error?
Recognizing that Father Gruner has every right under Church law to advocate his views on the Fatima Message, [Vatican Secretary of State, Angelo Sodano] devised…a…plan to silence this inconvenient priest by indirection. Father Gruner’s Italian bishop-who had earlier told Father Gruner of “worried signals from the Vatican Secretary of State”(10)-was pressured to order him to leave Canada and “return” to Avellino, Italy, where he had been ordained back in 1976, unless he found a new bishop to incardinate him. (11) Sodano’s apparatus then took steps to prevent any other bishop in the world from incardinating Father Gruner. At the end of this…process, the plan was to announce (through the Bishop of Avellino) that since Father Gruner had “failed” to be incardinated by another bishop, he must return to Avellino within 30 days (abandoning his entire priestly life’s work) or he would be “suspended” for “disobedience.”(12) But the Sodano apparatus did not foresee at least two developments:
First, despite all efforts to block it, the Archbishop of Hyderabad agreed to incardinate Father Gruner. The Archbishop issued a formal decree of incardination declaring that “evil forces have conspired to destroy your [Father Gruner’s] work of love” and that “bureaucratic forces cannot stifle God’s work.”(13) In subsequent canonical proceedings, the Sodano apparatus (speaking this time through the Congregation for the Clergy) arbitrarily asserted that the incardination in Hyderabad was “non-existent” and that Father Gruner must still return to Avellino or be “suspended” for “disobedience” since he had “failed” to be incardinated elsewhere. The Archbishop of Hyderabad, rejecting this arbitrary claim, strongly reaffirmed his decree of incardination with a new decree, after examining all the pertinent documents and finding no defect in the incardination.(14)
Second, since Father Gruner had been living in Canada with the written permission of the Bishop of Avellino since 1978, under Italian law it was legally impossible for him to return to Italy even if the order to return were just and valid. The Bishop had never taken any steps to obtain proper permissions for a foreign priest to enter an Italian diocese, including an entry visa supported by written commitments that the Bishop provide financial support, medical coverage and pension-for a priest who had been absent, with his permission, for more than 16 years and had not received one penny of support from Avellino in all that time. The Bishop of Avellino has since ignored two written requests from Father Gruner for an explanation of how he can be expected to “return” to Avellino without any visa or guarantees of financial support, as required by Italian immigration law.(15) Nor has the Bishop ever responded to Father Gruner’s notification that the Archbishop of Hyderabad considered Father Gruner to be incardinated in Hyderabad.(16) Clearly, the Bishop himself has no interest in Father Gruner’s “return” to the Diocese of Avellino, which would involve legal work and substantial expense for the lifetime support and maintenance of a foreign-born priest whose services the Bishop has never needed. The Bishop is but a pawn in a canonical game contrived by the Sodano apparatus.
In short, Father Gruner finds himself in a situation quite analogous to that of our hypothetical unjustly punished child:
First, Father Gruner has been punished for nothing. That is, he has been punished for “failing” to be incardinated elsewhere, when in fact he has been incardinated elsewhere. Like the child who did not steal the cookies, Father Gruner did not “fail” to be incardinated. Even more insulting to one’s sense of justice is that those who declare Father Gruner’s “failure” to be incardinated are the very ones who tried to block his incardination anywhere in the world besides Avellino, and who now arbitrarily assert that even the valid incardination in Hyderabad-which Father Gruner obtained despite their interference-is “non-existent.”
See: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/mary/ferrara-gruner1.htmSecond, Father Gruner has been punished for failing to do the impossible. That is, Father Gruner’s persecutors in the Vatican bureaucracy have done everything in their power to make it impossible for Father Gruner to achieve incardination, and even when he did achieve it (in Hyderabad), they called the incardination “non-existent.” Furthermore, even if Father Gruner were not incardinated in Hyderabad (and he is), he has been punished for “failing” to return to Italy when his return is impossible because the Bishop of Avellino has never complied with Italian immigration law.
Matt16:18,An article that is also full of error.
This article was published on the “The Fatima Crusader” website which is run by Father Nicholas Gruner, a dissident priest that is not in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. Gruner: Not in Good Standing with the Roman Catholic Church
Apr. 06, 1998
VATICAN (CWNews.com) – A story on the work of Father Nicholas Gruner, which appeared in Catholic World News last week, contained several errors.
Father Gruner was ordained to the priesthood-- not suspended from priestly duties-- in 1976. He was threatened with suspension by the Diocese of Avellino in May 1995, when he failed to obey an order to return to that diocese after an approved absence of many years. Father Gruner has appealed that suspension, and under canon law the suspension does not officially take effect while the appeal is in process.
Does this illustrate a too ready willingness to pass judgement before all facts are accounted for? Has Fr Gruner’s appeal been ruled on? I mean, I don’t know, but it would seem to matter.Supporters of Father Gruner charge that the order to return to Avellino was the result of intense lobbying by “Vatican bureaucrats” who have consistently opposed his Fatima crusades. In 1992 the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy took the unusual step of announcing that these Fatima conferences were undertaken without ecclesial approval.
I am kind of suprised you do not know of Vennari. Your work has been around for a number of years, so I presumed you would know of other apologists.I don’t know who John Vennari is, but his article is full of the same paranoid claptrap that Fr. Gruner disseminates.
I don’t agree with everything he says, either, but none of those statements are baseless. I would attribute them more to “the spirit of Vat. II”, then Vat. II itself, but it is hard to seperate the two.Such as these ridiculous statements:Vatican II’s program and reforms display Liberal Catholicism’s basic components
eliminating a great deal of theology is what the Conciliar reforms are all about
Cardinal Ratzinger rejoiced that parts of Vatican II are a “counter-syllabus”
The link does not work.This comment by I. Shawn McElhinney sums up nicely what I think about dissident “traditionalists”:What is truly ironic is that some extremist fundamentalists think that the Church since …
Lol. I hope not.I was surprised he would make a comment like that. See, you are giving the other Matthew1618 a bad name .
Here is the url: matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendix1.htmlThe link does not work.
I was only pointing out that one should be skeptical because this article was posted on a website that is known for extremist views. I read the article by John Vennari – he thinks that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, Archbishop Levada, are a bunch of “liberals” that are conspiring to destroy the Catholic Church. Sheesh! What sane Catholic listens to such idiocy?You were using a controversy of Gruner to attack Vennari.
After denigrating Archbishop Levada, John Vennari calls Levada “an American from San Francisco.” I assume from that snide little comment we are supposed to draw the conclusion that Archbishop Levada is a “liberal” that supports sodomy too. Why else would John Vennari mention the fact that he was the Archbishop of San Francisco?Don’t rely on ad homenim attacks.