What Fr. Gruner Actually Thought and Wanted
In light of the controversies currently surrounding the work of Fr. Nicholas Gruner, I believe it is my obligation to speak of what I know concerning the mind of Fr. Gruner. All of what I write here was either told to me by Fr. Gruner himself on numerous occasions or told me by my dear friend John Vennari in private conversations, either over the phone or face to face. For all of those involved in the controversy, we must remember what Aristotle said when confronted with a fundamental disagreement with his teacher, mentor, and colleague Plato, "Truth is more important than friendship"; and what are we all about but truth.
First, when Fr. Gruner spoke about the Third Secret, information that he had gleaned from his many relevant sources --- whether the information given to Fr. Gruner was accurate or not I have no way of knowing, but I do know that he himself held the following to be true --- he indicated that the Third Secret included the following:
1) Our Lady's warning that there would be an "evil Council."
2) Our Lady's warning that the Mass was "not to be changed."
3) Our Lady's warning that "one third of the stars shall be swept from the heavens, by tail of the Devil": Fr. Gruner interpreted this as indicating that 1/3 of the priests and bishops would serve Satan directly.
4) The Apostasy in the Church "would come from the very top," in other words, from at least one or more men who were designated as being "the pope." Cardinal Ciappi --- who Fr. Gruner continually cited --- was famous for indicating that this was the Third Secret, which he had read himself.
In other words, Fr. Gruner saw the Third Secret as being a complete vindication of the traditionalist movement. Obviously, in Fr. Gruner's understanding, the Third Secret was a condemnation of Vatican II, the New Mass, many of the clergy of the post-conciliar Church, and an indication that a man or men designated as pope would be the ones actually pushing the apostasy in the Church. What was Our Lady warning us against? The New Doctrine, the New Mass, the New Priesthood, and the New Popes. How else can we possibly interpret what he said about the Third Secret? The whole purpose of the Third Secret was to warn people against the Novus Ordo religion. This is clearly what Fr. Gruner intended to convey to me.
With regard to the papacy, however, we must consider this. Fr. Gruner came to believe that Francis I was not a true pope, but that Josef Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had retained the office. So it would have to be Benedict that would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and not Francis. John Vennari told me this on two occasions in private after the death of Fr. Gruner. At the time I had not known that this was the case and was surprised. John also said that Father was making statements in this regard during his speeches at his conferences at least by late 2014. John was not pleased by this turn of events at all, not at all.
During one of the occasions in which John Vennari told me about this new view of Fr. Gruner on the claims of Francis, he also told me about Fr. Gruner's plans for the future of his organization. John had just found out about these plans and was not at all happy about these plans. According to John, who told me this almost exactly 2 years ago, Fr. Gruner had kept these plans from him, since he knew that John would not approve. Apparently Fr. Gruner had wanted Andrew Cesanek to be his successor, but only after Andy had gone over to Ireland to be trained as a priest by Fr. Paul Kramer and then ordained by Bishop Richard Williamson. John thought that this would be a disaster for the Fatima Center. There is no doubt however that John understood this to be Fr. Gruner's plan. The entire story totally surprised me since I had no idea that this was the case.
I hope that the truth of this situation can clarify things. I think that many might not like what I say here, but since Fr. Gruner and John have left us and this is the 100th anniversary of the Miracle of Fatima --- I thought that the truth must be told.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Do you think foul play was involved in Fr. Gruner's sudden and unexpected death? In John coming down with Cancer?ReplyDelete
i have always thought the same thing. Foul play for the diminution of the "dangerous"Consecration message. Fast acting cancer viruses were created by government labs in the 1950's. Dr Mary Sherman was murdered over it. It's very easy to kill people and they do it every day.Delete
How gratifying to know that I am not alone in thinking likewise. Also, didn't Father Gruner have a meeting with high ranking Russian diplomats shortly before his death?Delete
So why didn't Andy go to Ireland and get trained by Fr. Kramer and ordained by Bishop Williamson?ReplyDelete
Thank you for your article Peter. I am a long time subscriber to the Fatima Crusader, CFN, Remnant and Angelus. I live in Australia though I was born and raised in the US, and I have not been able to afford to attend the Fatima conferences but I've listened to some of your talks online and read some of your articles. I am very grateful to know the Truth. I have never believed Jorge was a true Pope by God's grace. Being a time when it is not a popular belief, I am so grateful to have support from like minded people. It is a blessing. Do you have a mailing list via email I can receive your posts on?ReplyDelete
May God bless you in your good work for our Lord and our Lady. You and yours are in my prayers.
I am making a second comment which I believe is very important. Though Fr Gruner and John Vennari did not always agree, they did not attack each other publicly. To do so to our brothers can be so damaging. Truth is more important than friendship, but it needn't destroy it. Surely friends can challenge each other without humiliating each other. In fact I believe that we should challenge one another by showing such charity that all will know we love one another. Even if we have to go public, there is a variety of ways we can put forth our arguments. Truth in charity. Pax in MariaReplyDelete
Someone posted this information: "Fr. Paul Kramer states on his own page that this is 99% accurate with the exception that he was only to make an assessment of Andrew Cesanek (after being under Fr. Gruner's direction for many years); not to "train" him for the priesthood. Also that Bishop Williamson wasn't the only ordaining bishop being considered."ReplyDelete
Mr Chojnowski, given those facts what are we to make of it? I've read about bishop Williamson, now consigned to the wilderness fringe of the Church. The situation seems untenable. I will pray as always that Our Lady get us out of this fix, and soon!ReplyDelete
The Resistance is not "the wilderness fringe of the Church". It grows faster than the "Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" and certain traditionalist groups would like. And if Catholic Action in action is able to gain traction, then even faster.Delete
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
BENEDICTUS PP XVI
How do the captious speculations by this disobedient priest , suspended a divinis and which suspension was upheld by The Apostolic Signatura, help to clarify anything?
Father Gruner was not disobedient. The good Father was not the first defender of tradition to be "suspended" (SSPX Bishops and Abbe de Nantes come to mind). The "suspension" simply means that Father Gruner hit a raw nerve deep inside the Modernist Collective.Delete
Obviously where Fr. Gruner and Fr. Kramer differed was that, Fr. Gruner didn't elevate his probable opinion that Francis was not The Pope to a certitude, which is why Fr. Gruner could still say Francis was Pope without "disimulating". Personally, I think because of the confusion and questions surrounding Benedict's intentions in his resignation and the absurdity of an "Expanded Papacy" one active and one contemplative stated by a Bishop who knows his mind, It's possible that a priest could have an option as to which Pope to put in The Canon for as long as B-XVI is alive, because there is real doubt to which one is The True Pope. But if B-XVI died first, then you would be forced to put Francis's name in The Canon because their is no longer an option and it's possible Francis was and is The Pope, and by not placing his name in The Canon after B-XVI's death you would be deposing him before a judgement by The Church.Delete
The momentary Triumph of Christ’s Enemies by John VennariReplyDelete
The author states: "According to John, who told me this almost exactly 2 years ago, Fr. Gruner had kept these plans from him, since he knew that John would not approve. Apparently Fr. Gruner had wanted Andrew Cesanek to be his successor, but only after Andy had gone over to Ireland to be trained as a priest by Fr. Paul Kramer and then ordained by Bishop Richard Williamson." Has Mr. Cesaneck commented openly on this and if so what did he say?Delete
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. We are seeing the "False Prophet" described in the Apocalypse. In the month of February some months before Pope Benedict "retired", a Cardinal or Bishop was speaking before a group of Bishops, in I think, Japan about the coup to oust him or possibly murder him. This was reported, quickly stricken from any news, and the one who said this was forced to retract it all. The purpose of this False Prophet is to work with the Antichrist, who we do not yet know, to bring about the One-World Church. We are seeing the steps moving forward for this. Soon the Consecration will be removed from the Mass to make it appeal to all men no matter what they believe. At this point, Catholic Prophecy tells us that "all priests will have to make a decision."ReplyDelete