R.I.P. Father Gruner

[gracepoole]

I’m reading them alright, so why did you even bring the Facebook thing up??? God Bless, Memaw

Why did you bring up any of the points you raised in this thread? I thought it was relevant and interesting. If you don’t think so, no need to engage with it.

 

[Memaw]

Why did you bring up any of the points you raised in this thread? I thought it was relevant and interesting. If you don’t think so, no need to engage with it.

Don’t you think this is a bit childish. Is no one supposed to have an opinion except you?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[gracepoole]

Don’t you think this is a bit childish. Is no one supposed to have an opinion except you?? God Bless, Memaw

When did I ever make such a claim?! I posted about a Facebook comment I found disturbing that dealt with the subject of this thread and I explained why I found it disturbing. Then you took it personally and assumed I was calling you uncharitable. I explained that this wasn’t the case and you then asked why I had posted about Facebook to begin with. And now – seemingly because I posted about something in which you’re disinterested – you’re claiming that I’m somehow excluding others from having opinions? Why shouldn’t I make the same claim about you?

I can definitely say what I find childish here…

 

[giuseppeTO]

Here is a note from Attorney Christopher Ferrara. I have redacted some names out of charity. You can PM me or contact Mr. Ferrara if you have any questions about what he wrote.

Apparently, someone informed you that Father Gruner is under some sort of penalty imposed upon him by “the Vatican.” That is simply not the case. This appears to be a reference to outdated canonical proceedings engineered by the same Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal xxxxxx, who covered up the scandal of Father Maciel for decades until he was overruled and then removed from office by Pope Benedict. In order to silence Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate in the 1990s, xxxxx attempted to force Father’s return to the Diocese of Avelino, where he was ordained in the 1970s, by having the Bishop of Avellino demand that Father be incardinated in another diocese by a bishop friendly to his work or else return to Avellino after his long and fully approved residence in Canada to conduct the apostolate. (Any return to Italy would have been precluded by Italian immigration law, in any event.)

xxxx then tried to prevent Father Gruner’s incardination in any other diocese, so that the Bishop of Avvelino could then “suspend” him for “disobedience” to the very command xxxx was preventing Father from obeying. But Sodano’s plan failed when the Archbishop of Hyderabad incardinated Father Gruner in 1995 with a decree protesting that “evil forces cannot destroy your work of love,” and the Archbishop later affirmed his decree despite Vatican pressure to rescind it. Copies of these documents have been published to the world by Father Gruner.

The canonical proceedings to which the Archdiocese of Milan seems to be referring, which related entirely to Father Gruner’s non-existent “failure” to be incardinated by another bishop, were rendered moot by the incardination in Hyderabad. The Vatican itself has never imposed any penalty of any kind on Father Gruner, but rather the proceedings point only to the Bishop of Avellino’s order that Father Gruner be incardinated elsewhere, which order Father Gruner obeyed. The Bishop of Avellino was advised of the new incardination and thereafter never took any action against Father Gruner. Nor did he ever “suspend” Father (having merely threatened to do so in a letter that, like the canonical proceedings as a whole, became moot when Father Gruner was incardinated in Hyderabad). I know these things because I am intimately familiar with the acts of the canonical proceedings and have written numerous documents which are part of those proceedings and can be found in the Vatican archives.

Father Gruner is incardinated, and today he is under no suspension or penalty of any kind.

If you wish to discuss this matter with me, I am available.

Respectfully yours,
Christopher A. Ferrara
President and Chief Counsel
American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.

 

[Memaw]

Here is a note from Attorney Christopher Ferrara. I have redacted some names out of charity. You can PM me or contact Mr. Ferrara if you have any questions about what he wrote.

Apparently, someone informed you that Father Gruner is under some sort of penalty imposed upon him by “the Vatican.” That is simply not the case. This appears to be a reference to outdated canonical proceedings engineered by the same Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal xxxxxx, who covered up the scandal of Father Maciel for decades until he was overruled and then removed from office by Pope Benedict. In order to silence Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate in the 1990s, xxxxx attempted to force Father’s return to the Diocese of Avelino, where he was ordained in the 1970s, by having the Bishop of Avellino demand that Father be incardinated in another diocese by a bishop friendly to his work or else return to Avellino after his long and fully approved residence in Canada to conduct the apostolate. (Any return to Italy would have been precluded by Italian immigration law, in any event.)

xxxx then tried to prevent Father Gruner’s incardination in any other diocese, so that the Bishop of Avvelino could then “suspend” him for “disobedience” to the very command xxxx was preventing Father from obeying. But Sodano’s plan failed when the Archbishop of Hyderabad incardinated Father Gruner in 1995 with a decree protesting that “evil forces cannot destroy your work of love,” and the Archbishop later affirmed his decree despite Vatican pressure to rescind it. Copies of these documents have been published to the world by Father Gruner.

The canonical proceedings to which the Archdiocese of Milan seems to be referring, which related entirely to Father Gruner’s non-existent “failure” to be incardinated by another bishop, were rendered moot by the incardination in Hyderabad. The Vatican itself has never imposed any penalty of any kind on Father Gruner, but rather the proceedings point only to the Bishop of Avellino’s order that Father Gruner be incardinated elsewhere, which order Father Gruner obeyed. The Bishop of Avellino was advised of the new incardination and thereafter never took any action against Father Gruner. Nor did he ever “suspend” Father (having merely threatened to do so in a letter that, like the canonical proceedings as a whole, became moot when Father Gruner was incardinated in Hyderabad). I know these things because I am intimately familiar with the acts of the canonical proceedings and have written numerous documents which are part of those proceedings and can be found in the Vatican archives.

Father Gruner is incardinated, and today he is under no suspension or penalty of any kind.

If you wish to discuss this matter with me, I am available.

Respectfully yours,
Christopher A. Ferrara
President and Chief Counsel
American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.

Evidently he hasn’t read many of the issues of Fr. Guner’s Fatima Crusader, he told of some of his problems with the Vatican himself. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Lormar]

I agree. We should be praying for the repose of this priest’s soul and put aside any grievances about his beliefs for the moment. Now is not the time.

I agree with the both of you.

It doesn’t matter what any one of us thought or didn’t think about him.

Just pray for him.

This isn’t a swipe at you, Memaw. I am thinking mostly of another thread I saw on CAF about this in another section a few days ago as well as other places on the internet announcing his death. I don’t know what happened on the obituary thread here in the other section, but the other ones I read turned into a massive fight within a page or two.

 

[commenter]

A recent post referenced attorney Christopher Ferrara’s explanation of Fr. Gruner’s status.

from Wikipedia:
“On October 23, 2012, Ferrara, along with Nicholas Gruner, appeared at the headquarters of the European Union in Strasbourg, France to speak at a press conference in support of a motion for a declaration by the EU Parliament calling upon Pope Benedict XVI to carry out the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”.

Keep in mind that the EU Government is very hostile to Christianity, and to the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Ferrara could have written a private letter to the pope expressing his request. What did he do instead? In which organization does he place his trust and confidence?

Regarding Fr. Gruner, RIP

 

[Memaw]

I agree with the both of you.

It doesn’t matter what any one of us thought or didn’t think about him.

Just pray for him.

This isn’t a swipe at you, Memaw. I am thinking mostly of another thread I saw on CAF about this in another section a few days ago as well as other places on the internet announcing his death. I don’t know what happened on the obituary thread here in the other section, but the other ones I read turned into a massive fight within a page or two.

Like I said, I have been praying for Fr. Grunar for a long time and I surely won’t stop now. It’s what he left behind that worries me. Especially among Catholics. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

A recent post referenced attorney Christopher Ferrara’s explanation of Fr. Gruner’s status.

from Wikipedia:
“On October 23, 2012, Ferrara, along with Nicholas Gruner, appeared at the headquarters of the European Union in Strasbourg, France to speak at a press conference in support of a motion for a declaration by the EU Parliament calling upon Pope Benedict XVI to carry out the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”.

Keep in mind that the EU Government is very hostile to Christianity, and to the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Ferrara could have written a private letter to the pope expressing his request. What did he do instead? In which organization does he place his trust and confidence?

Regarding Fr. Gruner, RIP

That is one of the big problems, the Consecration HAS been made and he just wouldn’t accept that, even tho Sister Lucy DID and she said the Blessed Mother did. That has caused many doubts between the Pope and some of the faithful. God Bless, Memaw

 

[thistle]

Here is a note from Attorney Christopher Ferrara. I have redacted some names out of charity. You can PM me or contact Mr. Ferrara if you have any questions about what he wrote.

Apparently, someone informed you that Father Gruner is under some sort of penalty imposed upon him by “the Vatican.” That is simply not the case. This appears to be a reference to outdated canonical proceedings engineered by the same Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal xxxxxx, who covered up the scandal of Father Maciel for decades until he was overruled and then removed from office by Pope Benedict. In order to silence Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate in the 1990s, xxxxx attempted to force Father’s return to the Diocese of Avelino, where he was ordained in the 1970s, by having the Bishop of Avellino demand that Father be incardinated in another diocese by a bishop friendly to his work or else return to Avellino after his long and fully approved residence in Canada to conduct the apostolate. (Any return to Italy would have been precluded by Italian immigration law, in any event.)

xxxx then tried to prevent Father Gruner’s incardination in any other diocese, so that the Bishop of Avvelino could then “suspend” him for “disobedience” to the very command xxxx was preventing Father from obeying. But Sodano’s plan failed when the Archbishop of Hyderabad incardinated Father Gruner in 1995 with a decree protesting that “evil forces cannot destroy your work of love,” and the Archbishop later affirmed his decree despite Vatican pressure to rescind it. Copies of these documents have been published to the world by Father Gruner.

The canonical proceedings to which the Archdiocese of Milan seems to be referring, which related entirely to Father Gruner’s non-existent “failure” to be incardinated by another bishop, were rendered moot by the incardination in Hyderabad. The Vatican itself has never imposed any penalty of any kind on Father Gruner, but rather the proceedings point only to the Bishop of Avellino’s order that Father Gruner be incardinated elsewhere, which order Father Gruner obeyed. The Bishop of Avellino was advised of the new incardination and thereafter never took any action against Father Gruner. Nor did he ever “suspend” Father (having merely threatened to do so in a letter that, like the canonical proceedings as a whole, became moot when Father Gruner was incardinated in Hyderabad). I know these things because I am intimately familiar with the acts of the canonical proceedings and have written numerous documents which are part of those proceedings and can be found in the Vatican archives.

Father Gruner is incardinated, and today he is under no suspension or penalty of any kind.

If you wish to discuss this matter with me, I am available.

Respectfully yours,
Christopher A. Ferrara
President and Chief Counsel
American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.

Father Gruner was under suspension and it had also been upheld by the Vatican court.

 

[Tomdstone]

Father Gruner was under suspension and it had also been upheld by the Vatican court.

How does one explain that you say yes, but Mr. Ferrara says no?

 

[Memaw]

Thank you for clearing that up. Fr. Johm Hardon S.J. investigated the Bayside situation for the Vatican, years ago, and he told me it was false and forbidden. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Henry_Garon]

The letter from Christopher Ferrara has NOT been refuted.

The canonical proceedings to which the Archdiocese of Milan seems to be referring, which related entirely to Father Gruner’s non-existent “failure” to be incardinated by another bishop, **were rendered moot by the incardination in Hyderabad. **The Vatican itself has never imposed any penalty of any kind on Father Gruner, but rather the proceedings point only to the Bishop of Avellino’s order that Father Gruner be incardinated elsewhere, which order Father Gruner obeyed. The Bishop of Avellino was advised of the new incardination and thereafter never took any action against Father Gruner. **Nor did he ever “suspend” Father **(having merely threatened to do so in a letter that, like the canonical proceedings as a whole, became moot when Father Gruner was incardinated in Hyderabad). I know these things because I am intimately familiar with the acts of the canonical proceedings and have written numerous documents which are part of those proceedings and can be found in the Vatican archives.

Father Gruner is incardinated, and today he is under no suspension or penalty of any kind.

The article from “the Tablet” does not refute Christopher Ferrara’s letter, but merely contradicts it. Mr. Ferrara claims personal knowledge, as he wrote numerous documents that are a part of the proceedings. The “Tablet” does not have any personal knowledge, nor does the communiqué from the Brooklyn diocese. The communiqué even acknowledges that

the Reverend Nicholas Gruner,… is currently incardinated in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad…

If Fr Gruner’s “suspension” was based on his “failure” to be incardinated by another bishop, then the Hyderabad incardination rendered that action moot. And if Mr Ferrara is correct, then Fr Gruner was never even suspended to begin with; Nor was there any action taken against Fr Gruner by the Vatican.

Notice that the communique does not cite any actual authority. It comes from some nameless entity at “the Holy See”. Mr Ferrara has previously condemned this sort of anonymous hearsay buck-passing:

Notice that nowhere in this chain of hearsay and buck-passing is there any indication of (a) who has “suspended” Father Gruner (note well: it is not the Vatican that has done so), (b) **when he was “suspended” **or (c) why he was suspended. There is a very good reason these particulars are missing from the press release: to reveal the particulars is to reveal that there is absolutely no basis for Father Gruner’s “suspension”—no offense against faith or morals, no violation of any law of the Church, nothing. As anyone who takes the least trouble to study the facts of Father Gruner’s case will appreciate, he has been subjected to cruelty and injustice no more defensible than the mistreatment of our hypothetical child. The case, in its essentials, can be summarized in a few paragraphs.

fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp

Is the truth based on reality, or on the ability to repeat the same lies over and over?

 

[Henry_Garon]

That is one of the big problems, the Consecration HAS been made and he just wouldn’t accept that, even tho Sister Lucy DID and she said the Blessed Mother did. That has caused many doubts between the Pope and some of the faithful. God Bless, Memaw

Actually, the Consecration HAS NOT been made, so it was right for Fr Gruner to continue to ask that Our Blessed Mother’s request be fulfilled. Sister Lucy DID NOT say that the Blessed Mother had accepted the consecrations made by Pius XII or by John Paul II:

1) The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by Pope Pius XII in an Apostolic Letter, addressed to the people of Russia on July 7, 1952.5

In one of her letters of the summer of 1952 Sr. Lucy wrote these lines concerning the act: "Thank you for the newspaper clipping reporting the consecration of Russia. I am grieved that it still has not been done as Our Lady requested."6

2) Act of offering and consecration by Pope John Paul II at Fatima, May 13, 1982.

The Pope himself said what he intended to accomplish by this act in the sermon of the Mass that he celebrated the morning of May 13, 1982, at Fatima: "* to accomplish once more what my predecessors have already done: confide the world to the Mother’s heart. …"7

In fact, this act of offering and consecration did not correspond at all to the consecration requested by Our Lady for several reasons: **It was a consecration of the world, and not Russia, which was not mentioned once! ***The act was not made explicitly to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Finally, the union of all the bishops with the Pope had not been required.

Sr. Lucy, moreover, declared to her niece, Maria do Fetal, on August 11, 1982: "I am old, I am 75 years old, and I am getting ready to see God face to face. I have given all my writings to the Holy Church. I shall die in peace. But, if anyone wants my opinion, here it is: the consecration of Russia, as Our Lady requested it, has not been made." She repeated the exact same thing four days later on August 15 to her old friend Mme. Pestana.

She wrote again along the same lines in the letter she wrote on the occasion of an interview she had on March 19, 1983, with Mgr. Portalupi, Apostolic Nuncio to Portugal:

**In the act of offering of May 13, 1982, Russia did not appear unequivocally as the object of the consecration. And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and consecration of Russia.** Pope John Paul II simply renewed the consecration of the world made by Pius XII on October 31, 1942. Certain benefits can be hoped for from this consecration of the world, but not the conversion of Russia.8

**3) The renewal, March 25, 1984, on the portico of St. Peter’s Basilica at Rome, of the act of offering and consecration of 1982.**10

Pope John Paul II had announced the renewal of the act of consecration in a letter addressed to all the bishops dated December 8, 1983, which he concluded by saying: “I should be grateful if you would be willing on this day (March 25, 1984) to renew the act at the same time that I do, in the manner in which each of you will deem the most appropriate.”

A few slight modifications were made to the act of 1982; however, it still lacked the essential elements of the requested consecration:

a) It merely involved a renewal of the consecration of the world made by Pope Pius XII in 1942, as a reading of the entire text (which is quite confusing in certain parts!) makes clear. Here are a few excerpts:

… With your love of mother and handmaid of the Lord, embrace our human world which we offer and consecrate to you, in our anxiety for the temporal and eternal fate of men and nations. … We want to unite ourselves to our Redeemer in this consecration for the world and for men. … How deeply we feel the need of this consecration for humanity and for the world

, for our contemporary world, in the unity of Christ Himself!. … Confiding to Thee, O Mother, the world, all men and all nations, we confide to You also the very consecration of the world, and we place it in Your maternal heart. [Quite a confused sentence!]

b) Russia was not mentioned a single time in the entire text!

c) Lastly, this act was not made explicitly to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but to "Mary, Mother."

Sr. Lucy had not been mistaken: three days before the consecration, on March 22, 1984, in a reply to Mme. Pestana who had asked her, “Well, Lucy, Sunday the consecration will take place?” she gestured that it would not be, and added, “This consecration cannot have a decisive character.” 12
Citations here: fatima.org/consecrussia/notobeyed.asp

 

[gracepoole]

 

[Lormar]

Henry, if Father Gruner was a priest in good standing, then tell me please why no priest in full communion with the Church offered his funeral Mass? Instead, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX did.

 

[Tomdstone]

Henry, if Father Gruner was a priest in good standing, then tell me please why no priest in full communion with the Church offered his funeral Mass? Instead, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX did.

Could it be that this was Father Gruner’s wish?

 

[Lormar]

That’s right, I forgot Father Gruner was the guest speaker at the Bayside bash last year.

 

[Lormar]

This is the reason why I am so turned off to Fatima.

Too much controversy.

Every time someone brings it up, the same tired and worn out argument ensues.

 

[agnes_therese]

Actually, the Consecration HAS NOT been made, so it was right for Fr Gruner to continue to ask that Our Blessed Mother’s request be fulfilled. Sister Lucy DID NOT say that the Blessed Mother had accepted the consecrations made by Pius XII or by John Paul II:

Citations here: fatima.org/consecrussia/notobeyed.asp

So, you are accusing the Vatican of lying to the faithful.