Fr. Gruner in October 2014: A Man Must be Catholic in Order to be Pope; Benedict did not validly Resign His Office
To view the video clearly, go down the blog page and slide the bar to center the video.
In a Fatima Center video entitled, "Questions about Pope Francis" uploaded on October 4, 2014, John Vennari is interviewing Fr. Nicholas Gruner. In this interview, Father is answering questions posed by viewers. The interview starts off with a discussion of the question of whether a marriage is valid even though the couple does not want to have children.
However, the questioner then moves on to the topic of Francis, could he not have had "the right intention" from the very beginning of his papacy. Fr. Gruner sums up the question by posing the question to himself, "Could the election of a pope be invalid?" Are there things [that would exist or occur] which would make the election of a particular pope invalid? To this question, Fr. Gruner responds, "Yes." The first condition for disqualification considered is whether a man could be validly elected if he were a heretic and not Catholic. Would the election of such a man be valid? Father brings up a historical case in which the majority of the Cardinals voted for a man, but St. Bernard and St. Norbert said that on the basis of what the papal candidate stood for he was not Catholic; hence it was obvious to everyone that "he cannot be the pope, he is not Catholic. This fact -- the fact of the man having publicly defected from the faith -- made it obvious to everyone that "he cannot be pope, he is not a Catholic." This fact allowed St. Bernard and St. Norbert to declare the election in the conclave invalid --- notice that Father Gruner is emphasizing that it was lack of Catholicity that rendered his election invalid, not just a problem with procedure. Fr. Gruner says St. Bernard did not have access to the details of the conclave to make a canonical or procedural argument, he simply said, "He is not Catholic, he cannot be pope."
After stating this, Father gets back to the general question of whether there are things that would make a papal election invalid. He answers in the affirmative. "But those are very specific things, but if he is not Catholic from the beginning [he cannot be validly elected pope]." He then states, "Now there are those that say this about Pope Francis, that he has never been Catholic, he has not been Catholic for a long time, if ever. But that is another subject." Fr. Gruner then paraphrases statements of Francis, "You do not have to be Catholic to be saved," "You should not be evangelizing." Then he brings up the question, "If the pope tells you to do something, do you need to obey him?" Father here seems to be changing the subject from the question of the validity of papal elections, but he is not. He then says, in this regard, "the first rule is, does he have jurisdiction for that?
A little later, Father brings up the heresy that "there is salvation outside the Catholic Church" and attributes this attitude and statement to Francis. Father than says he does not know whether Francis is a formal or a material heretic. "If this is something that is so foundational to his personality, it can be argued that he is not Catholic." Father than raises the fact that, at the time [Fall or Summer 2014 --- it is not completely clear when the video was filmed] Antonio Socci was coming out with a book which says that Benedict is still the pope and did not resign validly. He says that he had not, as yet, read the book, which was to be released in October 2014. John brings up, "This is what happens when proper procedure is not followed." Father then brings up the point that the munus (the office) was not given up in the resignation. John then gives voice to the which that Benedict had continued on until the end of his life. Fr. Gruner then brings up an article that he had read in Italian by a canonist who teaches in the faculty at the Universities of Bologna and Modena and at a Swiss university; this professor was quoted, by Fr. Gruner, as saying that Benedict was very clear that he was not resigning the munus (office) of the papacy, but the "active ministry." Fr. Gruner then reiterates that there is no such distinction, if you have the office you have the ministry. Concludes by then saying that no one should "leave the Church" because of the question of whether Francis is pope or Benedict is pope.
Of course, the question that John does not ask Father directly is, "Is Francis Pope?"
I'm having difficulties with a holy priest taking so long on his stance. What did he think was going on with the 'abolishment' of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the most beautiful creation on earth? The new mass CONDEMNED by Pontiffs became the ordinary of the mass that had all the bells and whistles designed originally by Martin Luther. Why was he silent when priests refused to say the new order mass and sent away without their bishops' protections?ReplyDelete
Given all that has been inferred and deduced about the Third Secret and the command that it should be revealed by 1960 (since it would be more clear), why the isolated concern about the validity of Benedict XVI's resignation?ReplyDelete
Benedict XVI's formal, public statement concerning his decision to resign was clear and unambiguous. Musings about his supposed "real" intentions seem irrelevant. Furthermore if Ratzinger has continued in any meaningful papal-like ministry after his resignation it hasn't made the Catholic Press (or any other press). Other claims that he was pressured to resign seem little more than salacious.
The last six holders of the keys (Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio) were all observed to publicly and persistently institute, promote and/or teach the heresies of Vatican II. All of them either had a hand in instituting the three principle heresies in Vatican II and the Protestation of the Mass or spent their Papal Offices enforcing these heresies on the Church.
My point is that Ratzinger has publicly and persistently promoted the Vatican II heresies longer and with as much force as any of the others. So the validity of his resignation is moot if public, persistent heresy deprived him of the authority of his Petrine Office. At least Francis is consistently following the Vatican II heresies to their logical next step without trying to fool anyone about this along the way. On the other hand Ratzinger fooled many by occasionally playing to the Traditionalists all the while never back peddling an inch from the Vatican II heresies or the Novus Ordo Service.
The only concession JPII and Ratzinger wanted from Abh Lefebvre (in his negotiations for the regularization of the SSPX) was his public acknowledgment of the validity of Vatican II [heresies] and the Novus Ordo Mass---something Lefebvre never gave. And lest we forget the part Ratzinger played in the charade of releasing the supposed Third Secret in 2000. Even the secular press in the United States (who generally hate Catholicism) were skeptical that Ratzinger produced the genuine article.