In a recent “Fatima Perspectives” column, Christopher Ferrara challenged Karl Keating to give credit where credit is due; offering readers what looks like a passionate defense of Fr. Nicholas Gruner’s legacy.
On some level it is a defense of Fr. Gruner, and on many points Mr. Ferrara argues his case, as usual, rather effectively.
This particular article also, however, has every appearance of being a furtive attempt to distance the Fatima Center of today from those well-formed opinions of Fr. Gruner that neo-conservatives, like Karl Keating & Company, are unwilling to even consider.
Mr. Ferrara writes:
Finally, no traditionalist I would consider a colleague has ever declared that Francis is an anti-Pope (in the sense that he was not validly elected, although he acts like one), that the See of Peter is vacant, or that Benedict is still the Pope. These are straw men.
These comments are both disturbing and revealing.
Surely Mr. Ferrara knows that Fr. Gruner had publicly made known his belief that Benedict is still the Pope; stating very plainly, “Whatever he was doing [with the Declaratio given on 10 February 2013], he was not resigning the papacy.”
As such, it is clear that Fr. Gruner believed that Francis “was not validly elected [pope], although he acts like one;” i.e., that he is an anti-pope in precisely the sense described by Mr. Ferrara.
Furthermore, Mr. Ferrara must know that the “Fatima priest” continued to pray for “Benedict, our Pope” during the celebration of Holy Mass; even well after Jorge Mario Bergoglio assumed the name Francis and started acting like he is pope.
All of this is made perfectly plain in the following video excerpt taken from an address given by Fr. Gruner in November of 2014. (This took place at a conference in Illinois where both Mr. Ferrara and I appeared as speakers.)
In light of the public comments recorded in the video above, one can safely assume that Fr. Gruner also shared these very same opinions with Mr. Ferrara privately, and all the more passionately at that.
Let me be very clear:
I’m not calling on Christopher Ferrara or anyone else at the new Fatima Center to embrace every opinion that Fr. Gruner ever put forth; I’m simply calling on them to be plainspoken and honest.
Each one of us – in particular those who work in an apostolate dedicated to defending Catholic tradition and the message of Our Lady of Fatima – must be willing to relentlessly pursue the truth and to address it head-on once it is found.
Like it or not, folks, here’s the truth: Fr. Gruner considered questions concerning the validity of Francis’ claims to the papacy entirely relevant to the message of Fatima and, therefore, to the core mission of the Fatima Center.
That’s not my opinion, or Fr. Paul Kramer’s opinion, or Cornelia Ferreira’s opinion, or Dr. Peter Chojnowski’s opinion, or the opinion of anyone else in the new Fatima Center’s crosshairs; it’s an undeniable fact concerning what Fr. Nicholas Gruner actually believed.
So why is Christopher Ferrara, on behalf of the new Fatima Center, leading readers to believe otherwise?
Readers of these pages may recall that the brain trust at the new Fatima Center, in what can only be described as a hostile takeover, leveled the following accusation at those who simply agreed with Fr. Gruner on the abovementioned points:
Increasingly, they have pushed the Fatima Center to change direction and become more radical in its orientation. They want to involve us in several controversial issues about which Catholics of goodwill can disagree. Fr. Gruner would not have agreed with a change to the mission of the Fatima Center and neither do we.
Yes, Catholics of goodwill can disagree on such controversial issues as those concerning the validity of Benedict’s resignation and the claims of Jorge Bergoglio to the Chair of St. Peter.
What no one of goodwill is justified in doing, however, is to twist what Fr. Nicholas Gruner actually thought about such issues and their relevance to the mission of the apostolate that he founded and served so very well.
The allegations above were leveled specifically against the U.S. board of the Fatima Center in a calumnious letter that had no other purpose than to intercept donations from longtime supporters of Fr. Gruner living in the United States.
What they were at pains to paint as a “change to the mission” as Fr. Gruner understood it was, as the video above makes entirely plain, nothing of the sort.
Now we find Christopher Ferrara slyly pushing the same false idea, albeit with a subtle hand that presumably few will notice.
Is it too much to expect plainspoken honesty from an apostolate dedicated to the Mother of Truth incarnate?
Such an approach on the part of Mr. Ferrara and the new Fatima Center would look something like this:
Dear Donor,
As you may know, Fr. Nicholas Gruner believed that Benedict XVI did not resign the papacy; that he continued as pope even after 28 February 2013, and more importantly, that he remained pope even after 13 March of that same year when Jorge Mario Bergoglio was presented to the world as Francis.
Our venerable founder believed that Francis is, therefore, an anti-pope in the sense that he was not validly elected, but simply acts as though he is the Roman Pontiff.
As such, Fr. Gruner continued to pray for “Benedict, our Pope” in the Roman Canon of the Traditional Latin Mass that he offered daily.
Furthermore, we know from his public statements that Fr. Gruner considered this issue to be entirely relevant to the mission of the Fatima Center.
We, the current Board of Directors of the Fatima Center in Canada, do not share Fr. Gruner’s opinions on these points.
It is our belief that Fr. Gruner made an error in judgment. We believe that controversial issues such as these are a distraction from our mission.
We have decided, therefore, to sever ties with those who think as Fr. Gruner thought on this matter; most notably the U.S. based Servants of Jesus and Mary.
Please send all future donations to….
Now, you tell me…
How do you think Fr. Gruner’s longtime financial supporters based in the U.S. would have responded to such an honest and straightforward letter?
I suppose we cannot know for certain, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that addressing the truth head-on often leads to a loss of friends and benefactors. (Didn’t Our Lord warn us about this?)
Is this why the new Fatima Center chose to go, and is persisting in taking, another route?
I cannot say one way or the other, but I do know this:
An apostolate that is anything other than plainspoken and honest – in spite of any past accomplishments – is undeserving of our support, and for the simple reason that twisting the truth is an offense against Christ.
Act on the information in this post as you will, dear reader.
If that means rethinking your support of akaCatholic, so be it. We’d rather be broke and unpopular than flourishing and fallacious any day.
A most blessed 2018 to you and yours.
Karl Keating has revealed himself as one willing to use ad hominem in order to protect the ‘establishment.’
It’s not a surprise he’ll go to lengths to try and put every trad who isn’t part of his VII collective under an umbrella and attempt to tarnish them all with the same brush. And I say this even as someone who himself holds doubts about Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ election.
Karl Keating, after retiring from Catholic Answers, where Fatima and the Consecration of Russia were pretty much banned topics, can be found engaging in a campaign to discredit Geocentrism with the help of other modernist apologists and atheists. But Keating never bothers actually touching the subject, but prefers to assassinate character directly via gross exaggerations and distortions.
I’m surprised he held back and didn’t go the whole hog and accuse Trads of being 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers in a bid to further prop up Francis.
Since the beginning, it’s been easy as pie to tell who actually knows what they’re talking about based on what they understand about Fatima and the Consecration. It’s the best litmus test to know who’s a faithful Catholic versus who’s a career-driven Catholic.
I’m grateful for the work Keating and Catholic Answers have done, which still remains good stuff overall, but on these cases they’ve dropped the ball hard.
Sad to see that the Fatima Center may potentially begin following Catholic Answer’s example, where certain legitimate topics are now taboo. And if they’d just remained quiet, it’d be one thing, but if Chris Ferrara or others are going to go out of their way to lash out sideways at those who are willing to deal with them, then that’s not a good sign.
We’re far past the point where both premises as to the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate MUST be entertained so that at least one of the two conclusions can be reached than risk sticking to only one that might be a false premise leading to only a false conclusion.
Oh man, are you watching the Georgia – Oklahoma football game.
Anyway its a good game.
But
which them who is directing the secular abominations, which one of them will survive the mortal head wound….?
One wonders if Mr. Ferrara is trying to imitate Cardinal Muller’s “bob[bing] and “weav[ing] stunts these days. On 26 December he had an excellent hard hitting article entitled The End of the Church of Slogans? wherein he uses the word “hoax” eleven times in describing Francis, or Bergoglio, and the revolutionary updating of his pontificate; in that article he never prefaces the hoaxer with Pope or Holy Father.
Then all of a sudden in his Fatima Perspectives dated 30 December (about which Louis comments herein), where he takes Mr. Keating to task for his comment on Mr. Lawler’s new book, which Mr. Ferrara takes as a “pot shot” at those who recognized the damaging direction of Francis much earlier than Mr. Lawler, there is a curious change of attitude–actually, an abrupt about turn from the tone found in the Remnant article and a radical dissociation from any possible hint of questioning the Bergoglio “pontificate”.
Whether this was brought about by one of Mr. Ferrara’s collaborators or colleagues who thought Mr. Ferrara’s Remnant article went too far because it was intimating that Francis might not be Pope and reprimanded him for the harshness of his Remnant article or whether there was some other reason is hard to know.
Yet, I say it is curious because the Remnant article was dated 26 December, although I believe it was initially dated 12/27 when I first saw it. Then there is the Fatima Perspective article on Mr. Keating dated 30 December; however, I did not notice this article until later in the afternoon of 1/1/2018 (the article not appearing on the Fatima website earlier in the afternoon). The question I have for Mr. Ferrara is: “Has there been some juggling around of dates on your Remnant and Fatima articles?”
The reason I ask is because on 28 December I emailed a Fatima Center worker and told him about the scathing attack on Francis in the Remnant, remarking as above about the use of the word “hoax” and the failure to address Francis as Pope. Perhaps, it is what this commentator said to the worker at the Fatima Center that changed Mr. Ferrara’s tune? It all seems quite curious.
But the tragedy of the whole fiasco is that here is the co-author/author of The Fatima Priest, one who worked so closely with Fr. Gruner and knew his thinking, who even admitted having shed tears at Fr. Gruner’s funeral, YET has the audacity, in a way, to betray his beloved friend– by disassociating himself from Fr. Gruner, when he knew Fr. Gruner held Benedict to be Pope, by his comment: “[N]o traditionalist I would consider a colleague has ever declared that Francis is an anti-Pope (in the sense that he was not validly elected, although he acts like one), that the See of Peter is vacant, or that Benedict is still the Pope.” Then later in his article Mr. Ferrara tries to justify his loyalty to Fr. Gruner, first of all by implying that Fr. Gruner wasn’t one of those “straw men” who say the election of Francis was invalid or that Benedict was still Pope, and then by an anachronism, insinuating that Father’s initial thinking about Francis had not changed!
So, is it human respect that is making Mr. Ferrara “bob and weave” like Cardinal Muller? Is he afraid he’s going to lose friends? Is he a coward to say what he really thinks? Something is very strange here.
What really takes the cake, however, is the ad hominem attack (attack of the person) on those who do have legitimate arguments concerning Benedict being Pope. I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict is truly Pope. And my work has been sent to Mr. Ferrara; but Mr. Ferrara has in no way refuted my arguments!!! If Mr. Ferrara is so scholarly, why is it that he has to attack persons. Why does he not show where my arguments are wrong? One cannot but wonder if he really is a coward, and indeed hypocritical, being that he attacks Cardinal Muller for “bob[bing] and weav[ing]” while he himself “bobs and weaves”!
In some breaking news, there’s at least 3 bishops who’ve decided not to wait around for Cardinal Burke to issue a correction.
Full text of Kazakhstan Catholic Bishops statement on Amoris Laetitia
Profession of the immutable truths about sacramental marriage
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-text-of-kazakhstan-catholic-bishops-statement-on-amoris-laetitia
“Being bishops in the pastoral office, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith (“cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei,” see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.
We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:
It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.
By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth.
31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.
+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana”
If it wasn’t for you Louie, many would not be aware of this statement from Fr Gruner, I never seen that video on the Fatima site, not once.
Fr Kramer himself stated that Fr Gruner was considering a different approach , not in the sense of changing the Fatima message that he fought to uphold for Number one Almighty and Our Lady as well as for our benefit us which is why Almighty God sent Our Lady in the first place ( his powerful ark ). We can never forget that God don’t need us we need Him.. Fr Gruner was considering rather, changing his method of getting it out, I suspect he was looking into a more aggressive approach after all he was up against aggressive groups like the world Fatima apostolate as well as the ever powerful Vatican. Fr Gruner was well aware that his approach wasn’t as effective as he had anticipated it to be , despite his hard labour, and you could hear his disappointment everytime he spoke, he’d always say ” maybe I’m not speaking very well” or some comment like that. He knew after fighting for 35 years to preserve the truth and get it out there, his efforts were opposed by those who desired to bury the message and make it go away , become forgotten. This caused Fr Gruner to be angry about the whole situation, especially regarding the papacy. Surely all are aware of his conversation with John In that one particular video.
But I suspect that Fr Gruners mission was to preserve and document the historical events leading up to the out come , but who is going to take up his torch? ……
Fr Kramer also stated that Our Beloved Fatima priest efforts were not effective . This is the plain Truth of the situation, it was Fr Kramer who was brave enough to come forward and speak out agianst this whole pope situation regarding Benedict and Francis, it was Fr Kramer who was bold enough to first come out and say that Francis was the antipope. Yet the sedes hoped to embrace Fr Kramer as a sede. Not likely…..
Regardless Chris , Matt even John Salsa and others who worked close with Fr Gruner, I don’t think their sincerity was or is near to that which Fr Gruner held regarding The Blessed Mothers message, they don’t Love Her like Fr Gruner loved her , maybe that’s the key , heck there So many who don’t believe it even still. Fr Gruner said this is an expression of despising Our Lady, unbelief which will lead this situation to grow even worst.
The bible teaches us that God will allow things to get so bad that once He corrects things His glory will be ever more present which will cause belief to flourish.
On the remenant they don’t mention it very much,, that’s not their focus at all, they… rather trying to go it like JPII did , which isn’t going to work. Not going to happen without the grace of God and to obtain the Much badly needed Graces the requirements, the rosary , brown scapular , five first Saturdays and the consecration of Russia which is the major requirement, the first of these to protect ourselves and aid the pope in obtaining the necesary graces to do the consecration.
“pray much for the Holy Father ” Our Lord and Lady said , never once did they say there would be no pope. Never once….but they did say he was going to suffer so there has to be a pope. We have Our Lord and Lady’s word on it. It is quite clear that they are the only two we can trust to tell us the truth. And it is quite clear from the actions of Francis that the devil implanted an imposter to steer the faithful away from praying for the true pope….that which Our Lord and Lady instructed have us do, thats the second best trick the devil can do… the first of course is causing people to believe he don’t exist …..after all his goal is to get the laity, which is the main purpose why he asked for more power over the bishops, and why Our Lady instructed us to pray her rosary, wear the brown scapular and do the first five Saturdays of devotion, we at the present in war for our souls. Theres going to be a cut off point for those few graces from Our Lady. That’s when Nations are anilated. And she never said it was all political either, seeing how the vision was showing Rome in half ruins with dead people scattered all over the place, that’s physical war. Death will come like a theif robbing people of any chance to have recourse to Jesus and Mary. Our Lord old us it’s never too late to have recourse , but he never said it was guaranteed either, that promise is an open invitation to anyone willing to put the effort in. It’s work.
But there are those who think or deny that it will come to such a chaistisement, not so much for those dying in the Middle East the past few years, it’s spreading to the west beginning with Europe in the Balkans, there’s civil war brewing within the EU, even as far north as Scotland. Coldness towards fellow man is second only to the coldness towards the The Blessed Trinity , and that coldness has turned icy. Erdogan stated on the 100th anniversary of the Skye’s picot , that the Ottoman Empire will be great and glorious once again by 2023, he’s over there rallying the troops. Russia will play a huge role if he succeeds as he will pick up where the sultan left off, jihad in the west….break the cross, not hard to do these days, seeing how Francis is labouring hard to crack the cross with his heretical poison. it will be easy pickings for the second largest army in NATO. It’s quite mysterious how the vision lines up with the one of the main goals of Islam, and how Our Lady pitched her feet in Fatima an Islamic named highly honoured in Islam. Knowing what I know about the name and what it means in Islam and how the place was renamed in Portugal, it surely reflects that Almighty God knows far more then we could ever know. Maybe God admires the Muslim zeal for what he believes in. Lord knows we lack such zeal in the west. After all God said he would always be with Ishmael.
My father had this rather crass phrase that he used ALL the time and I tend to agree with him. “Nobody says $#^* with a mouthful.” It’s for a reason, of course, saying $#^* is not a career advancement strategy. I notice that even Fr. Gruner asks the question, whose name do you say and then goes on to not answer; the point is there can’t be two popes. He’s not confused and if we are, we have the right to ask for the rest of the secret. Okay. Louie Verrecchio, Ann Barnhardt, Mario Derksen, Frank Walker, Steve Skojec, they seem honest. Having different opinions, they can’t all be correct but I get the impression that they’re telling me what they believe to be true. It’s extremely unnerving when someone tells you something that you both know that person doesn’t believe. This happened recently with my own Priest and it was disappointing, to say the least. I don’t think God will judge us for being incorrect as harshly as He will for being dishonest. That whole 8th Commandment thing.
“I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict is truly Pope.”
Where have you shown this? I’d like to read it.
The problem isn’t in Bergoglio’s “reading” of AL; it’s in his writing of it. This notion that the problem is in the “reading” is yet more CatholiCuckery.
AlphonsusJr, I can send you a copy of my “Thesis”, which consists in about a dozen essays I’ve written concerning Benedict being Pope; however there are three that entail the main arguments, the others are supporting arguments. The three main articles involve 1) an analysis of the Official Latin text of Benedict’s renunciation address and a correct translation of the Latin, 2) a philosophical presentation demonstrating that the Office and the Exercise of the Office are distinct so that one can hold the office while foregoing the exercise of the Office, 3) an argument showing how Benedict has the RIGHT to do what he did. As far as I know, this “Thesis” is unique; it is even different from Fr. Kramer’s arguments with which I disagree. I have sent him a copy of my “Thesis” but he has not responded–precisely because he cannot, but also have shown him where he is wrong. I should add also that my arguments do not in any way take into account of Bergoglio’s “Pontificate”–they have no need to, for my argument shows Benedict maintained the Papacy even before the so called Conclave that elected Francis–hence there could not be a legitimate Conclave as long as Benedict lives.
If you or anyone else wishes a copy of this “Thesis” just email me at frdbelland@netscape.net requesting a copy. I have sent my argument to Cardinal Burke, Dr. Peters, among other intellectuals an no one has to this day refuted it (even my own Bishop has neither made a rebuttal nor forbidden me from publicizing it). I have also sent a copy to Mr. Siscoe, co-author of True or False Pope?, and asked him to refute my main arguments before trying to argue that Francis is Pope by popular demand. The fact is that it’s just not Politically Correct to cake the claim Francis is not Pope or that Benedict is Pope. There is much compromising going on, as Our Lady at Akita foretold in 1973–as well as “bob[bing] and weav[ing]”.
Of course, in can be dangerous to take a position against Francis–in many ways; consequences mean loss of job, loss of friends, calumny and for some of the higher–ups even death.
You have yet to still prove that Ratzinger was Pope.
More cockamamie sede-bait.
Fr., it’s simple. Chris is a lawyer, which at times can get in the way of holding fast. None of us is immune to diabolical disorientation.
Fleur
The sede’s are basically the only friends who remain of the hard core R&R faction (now resignationists). We sede’s stand true to what we have always known….you are the ones drifting closer to us and not the other way around. This is obviously not a game, but the idea that sede’s are simply a bunch of nuts is getting weaker and weaker by the day.
Louis, who’s LeoDlion? I like this guy and his sense of humor; he’s pretty sharp–and is loyal to the adage that “all analogies limp”.
Thank you so very much for speaking the truth. I followed Father Gruner before the internet and I always had the highest respect for him. God bless you.