Fatima Priest Harassed in Rome…

Fatima Priest Harassed in Rome…

Watch the three short interviews with Fr Gruner below, and tell us what you think about his treatment at the hands of Vatican Security. Are you surprised?


Comments (106)

  • Lionel (Paris)

    Why don’t you write to the Pope asking for the “consecration of Russia”? That might remind him on the topic?…

    November 16, 2013 at 10:09 pm
    • editor


      Not only have we all written to the Pope many times, but when Pope Benedict came to the UK, a group of us travelled to Birmingham, and with the help of the Police there, we were given a prime spot where we were able to stand with our posters, professionally produced, on “sticks” which we held up. They were printed in both German and English (some in German and some in English) – with a beautiful picture of Our Lady of Fatima in the corner. I happened to be holding one of the German posters and as the Pope cruised past, he looked directly at my poster (as the lovely lady beside me kept squealing: he’s reading your poster, he’s reading your poster….) then his eye went right along the line of the rest of our group scattered along from me, and he seemed to be reading each one – which meant he read over and over again: “Holy Father, please consecrate Russia to Our Lady to obtain world peace!”

      All agreed that his expression was very serious as he read our posters. But he still didn’t consecrate Russia and then he went and resigned on us. What does that tell you, Lionel? That we spent our time, money and energy to no good purpose? Not at all. It tells you that the laity are doing what we can, when we can but that, to date, the devil is winning.

      He’ll lose in the end, of course, and it’s that thought which keeps us going!

      November 16, 2013 at 11:16 pm
  • Theresa Rose


    What process did the Apostolic Signatura investigate the case of Fr Gruner? Who exactly complained of Fr Gruner and upon what grounds did they do so?

    Fr Gruner is in for a pounding over this “suspension” because of his work regarding Our Lady of Fatima and asking that the Consecration of Russia be done as Our Lady requested.

    Here is another link on what Fr Gruner has done showing that he is not suspended.


    November 17, 2013 at 9:38 pm
    • waynekelland

      The links you make are full of nonsense gobbledegook and unbelievable excuses. The Apostolic Signatura would have followed it’s normal processes. They would have held his case because Fr Gruner himself appealed against the suspension by his bishop – that is why it is beyond belief that Fr Gruner cannot know that his suspension is upheld.

      Let’s call a spade, a spade here. Fr Gruner is actually Mr Gruner now. He is no longer a roman catholic, let alone a priest. The nonsense on his website is not credible and I would suggest he is basically nothing short of dishonest and he is a charlatan. Be careful not to send him your well earned money because I’m sure he doesn’t publish audited accounts.

      If Mr Gruner wants to do the right thing then he needs to:
      a) stop pretending to be a priest in good standing and wearing clerical attire
      b) stop undertaking any kind of ministry
      c) return to his incardinated diocese and obey his bishop
      Why does he persistently refuse to do these things when he knows it is what is required?

      November 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm
      • editor


        Please note, you must NOT refer to Father Gruner as “Mr” on this blog – if you continue to do so, I’m sorry but your posts will be deleted.

        You are peddling the propaganda about Fr Gruner and risk making yourself seem like one of those “useful idiots” who does the work of the enemies of Fatima within the Vatican. If you don’t even know that once ordained a priest is always a priest, it’s little wonder that you cannot grasp the extent of the persecution of Father Gruner.

        If you went into work and were told you had been suspended, and you (naturally) asked WHO Had suspended you – what would you say if the receptionist at the front desk told you “a higher power” had suspended you? No names, no pack drill. Just a “higher power”.

        I’ll tell you what you would do if you had half a brain in your head – you’d go straight to your union or a solicitor, and demand to know who had suspended you and why. You’d also demand to know immediately, why you had not been given due warning(s), why the proper processes had not been followed. If some numpty then told you just to accept it, to be obedient to your superior, you’d rightly be outraged. Injustice tends to make normal people outraged.

        Now, frankly, I do not believe you’ve read the links already provided but I’m going to provide one now, written by Fr Gruner’s own attorney/lawyer, in response to a daft article in a neo-Catholic newspaper in the USA called The Wanderer. Read that slowly and thoughtfully right to the end, note the documentary evidence and if you still think that Fr Gruner is suspended, then there’s nothing we can do to help you here.

        Oh and just for the record, as you will see, Cardinal Sodano was one of the big players in the persecution of Fr Gruner, a Cardinal who, when Pope Benedict asked him to step down, refused to leave his office. More or less took up post there and said “no” to the instruction to get out. And he’s lecturing Fr Gruner on “obedience”? A Cardinal with HIS track record on dealing with victims of child abuse…? Truly, it would be laughable were it not so tragic, to see Catholics taken in by the propaganda, attacking and insulting a good priest like Fr Gruner, while siding with the enemies of the Church and of Fatima. For, make no mistake about it, Cardinal Sodano is an enemy of both Church and Fatima.

        Gerragrip. Think. The Church is in crisis. Our Lady of Fatima is not a title to which the likes of Sodano and his ilk are devoted: quite the reverse.

        For Heaven’s sake: think about it. As the crisis rages around us, and heretics are given teaching posts in schools, ordained to the priesthood and given free rein to spread their heresy on Catholic premises around the world, the only two priests who have been pronounced excommunicated (Archbishop Lefebvre) and suspended (Father Gruner) are traditional priests, intent on preserving the Mass and the priesthood, and spreading the truth about Fatima respectively. Are you really unaware of the diabolical crisis afflicting the Church right now, which a top Cardinal (Ciappi – chaplain to five popes up to and including Pope John Paul II – not sure about Benedict) said openly “begins at the top” according to the Third Secret of Fatima. Can you not see why the evil-doers in the Vatican do not want Fr Gruner pestering them to reveal the missing part of the Third Secret? There’s not a whiff of scandal of any kind around Fr Gruner, yet he is “suspended”? Priest abusers and criminal-priests are protected and promoted? Can you really not see what is going on?

        Do you REALLY want to help the Modernists peddle their lies about Fr Gruner? Do you really want to look like one of the many “useful idiots” who are helping to spread falsehoods about Fatima? Really? Or would YOU – like the rest of us here – like to know why the Vatican is suppressing part of the Third Secret, what it is, and why they are preventing the Consecration of Russia?

        I’d like your detailed observations on the lawyer’s article – which you can read here

        Not to read the article thoroughly and in a spirit of Catholic charity suggests that you are malicious and do not want to learn the truth. The truth is crystal clear for anyone of sincere and charitable intent.

        November 17, 2013 at 10:39 pm
      • waynekelland

        Fr Gruner and Archbishop Lefebvre are NOT the only priests to have been excommunicated in recent times. However, both were excommunicated for failing to obey the Pope and the rightful religious superiors and canon law.

        November 18, 2013 at 12:01 am
      • waynekelland

        OK I’ve read the additional link you have given and the attached long diatribe. There is nothing there that alters the facts and I have not changed my mind. Fr Gruner is a suspended priest as confirmed by the highest authorities in the Vatican. You can’t get more of a confirmation of his illegitimate status.

        November 18, 2013 at 12:20 am
  • waynekelland

    Editor removed insulting opening sentence.

    That is the judgement of the Roman Rota of the Apostolic Signatura – the highest court of the roman curia who upheld his suspension and to which there is no further recourse to appeal. You have clearly NOT read the article I have just posted. You are in bad faith. I am not reading the rest of this until you reply to my post above. If you persist in y our errors, we will not be able to help you here. To ignore the manifest truth, is a grave sin. At a glance at your next couple of sentences, total rubbish. Hurry up and read the article by Fr Gruner’s lawyer and then, if you wish to continue to condemn him, we cannot help you.

    He is prohibited from calling himself a priest, wearing clerical attire or exercising public or private ministry. He has excommunicated himself by continuing to do these things against the terms of his suspension. You cannot be excommunicated and be a priest. I’m sorry that you don’t like the facts but that is the objective reality. You don’t appear to accept or like the decision of the catholic church. that makes you a useless idiot not me!

    Having said such I will call him Fr Gruner for the purposes of this response. Fr Gruner is not being persecuted at all. He is required to follow canonical law like any other cleric. He has no right to special treatment nor does his predicament, which is of his own making, warrant it. He did not turn up to work to be told by the receptionist that he was suspended that is a totally ludicrous analogy. He left his diocese without permission to undertaken a ministry for which he did not have the consent of his bishop – in short he went AWOL. He refused and continues to refuse to return as required by his bishop. All priests are obliged to be incardinated to a diocese or belong to a religious order in order to exercise any ministry – we cannot have fly-by-night rogue priests just doing whatever they like with no episcopal oversight – that has never been the position within church history. Fr Gruner further tried to disobey his rightful bishop by trying to get himself incardinated into another diocese but that is unsuccessful because his bishop will not agree to it. These actions led quite rightfully to Fr Gruner being suspended.

    Fr Gruner refused to accept his suspension and appealed, as is his right, to the Apostolic Signatura who withheld the judgement. It is beyond belief that Fr Gruner does not know the result of this judgement since he himself initiated the process of appeal. Nevertheless, even if he does not know, because for example he refused to cooperate with the hearing, it does not matter. The Apostolic Signatura is the highest roman court with the authority of the Roman Pontiff himself and there no further recourse or legal appeal possible. That is canon law.

    I have answered this all before multiple times in posts above. There is nothing more to say. There is nothing left to debate because the As decision is definitive – except if you are not in communion with the Pope and follow some quasi schismatic sect like SSPX who twist and make the laws up as you go along. At the end of the day, you are either catholic or not and, by his actions, Fr Gruner has shown that he is not. If Fr Gruner is still a priest in good standing whose diocese is he incardinated to, and to whom does he answer to as a bishop? You won’t be able to give me a reply.

    November 17, 2013 at 11:11 pm
    • waynekelland

      My opening sentence wasn’t insulting, it was a statement of objective fact that Fr Gruner is suspended and by his own actions excommunicated. How can you be a priest if you are excommunicated?

      I have read the article by Fr Gruner’s so called lawyer and it is nonsense. I find it hard to believe that it is written by a qualified canon lawyer because it is not a credible defence. I have addressed all the issues raised in previous posts.

      You tell me now, if Fr Gruner is a priest in good standing as you claim – which diocese is he incardinated to? Show me a copy of his celebret. How do you explain the decision of the AS which upheld his suspension. Why, if he continues to wear clerical attire and undertake ministry against the terms of his suspension and canon law, is he not excommunicated?

      November 17, 2013 at 11:56 pm
      • Frankier

        If he is not a priest then surely he is entitled, as a layman, to request that Our Lady’s wishes be granted. Is Fr Gruner’s sin worse than what is alleged to be going on behind closed doors, and even open doors, in the Vatican?

        November 18, 2013 at 1:53 am
  • Margaret Mary


    With respect, the Apostolic Signature is not the highest court. All Catholics have the right to appeal directly to the Pope. From my reading of Fr Gruner’s situation, he has never had a reply from the Pope. It’s generally believed that his correspondence does not reach the Pope due to what is going on behind the scenes.

    Lots of priests work outside their dioceses and I remember reading on this blog once that someone here wrote to the diocese in Canada where Fr Gruner works and they were supportive of him. He would not be allowed to work there with the tolerance or support of the diocese if he were excommunicated.

    I think it’s a pity that you are so convinced by the lies about Fr Gruner. He is a most humble person.

    His life story is fascinating and if you read about him you will see that several bishops wanted to incardinate him but the Vatican Secretary of State, blocked those. At the moment I believe he’s incardinated in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad in India, unless the Vatican has put pressure on that Ordinary to excardinate him. It really wouldn’t matter anyway, as a priest friend once explained to me, because if he had a long-term permission to do his Fatima apostolate, which he had, I believe, then it wouldn’t matter. This is a time of crisis in the Church and I can’t see Our Lady or Her Son being annoyed because Fr Gruner isn’t incardinated in a diocese in these circumstances.

    Also, even those of us who don’t attend SSPX chapels know they are not schismatic (you can’t be “quasi-schismatic” you’re either in schism or not!) Some of us would love to live near enough to get to a Society Mass but that’s another subject.

    November 17, 2013 at 11:27 pm
    • waynekelland

      Sorry that’s not correct. There is NO RIGHT TO APPEAL following the Apostolic Signatura – a court of 5 cardinals. However, Popes in the past have chosen to hear the particulars of a case where a particular severe penalty is warranted but that is not a right under canon law. It’s a bit like Benedict commuting the sentence of his butler but not overturning the decision…

      There is normally no right of appeal from the decision of the Apostolic Signatura (can. 1629 #1); however, laypersons and clerics have rarely convinced the Pope to hear their case afterwards, usually if they are facing excommunication or some other form of severe censure, such as the loss of the right to teach theology or to administer the sacraments (a theologian and priest who faced censure got Pope John Paul II to hear his case and even asked the Pope to alter his own decision, though the Pope did not reverse the ruling in either case).

      It is not possible that Fr (sic) Gruner can be incardinated to any Indian diocese because incardination requires that you are a priest in good standing as well as the permission of his bishop – which he does not have. Fr Gruner obviously is not humble is he refuses to accept and obey the decisions of his bishop, the Vatican secretary of state or the apostolic signature.

      I would agree that you cannot be in quasi-schism and the SSPX are in fact in schism but I did not want to get into another debate.

      November 17, 2013 at 11:46 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        Did you actually read the really detailed article by Chris Ferrara? Every fact is there! Any priest can be incardinated anywhere if the bishop agrees to it. A friend of mine asked to be incardinated abroad and he’s there to this day. He is Scottish priest but wanted to work on the continent.

        Rome has never said the SSPX is in schism. The excommunications were lifted in 2009, I think it was. Cardinal Hoyos was appointed to be the liaison between the Society and the Vatican, i.e. he represented the pope and when he was asked in an interview if they were in schism, he said that anyone who thought they were in schism didn’t understand the situation. I’ve read that Renew America interview so often, I almost know if off by heart!

        November 18, 2013 at 12:10 am
      • waynekelland

        Yes a priest can be incardinated anywhere with the permission of his originating bishop but Fr Gruner’s bishop didn’t agree so he’s not incardinated anywhere else. It’s a bit like a bank account, you can’t transfer a debit balance. Fr Gruner is not in good standing so can’t be transferred anywhere until he regularises his position.

        Editor: Wrong again. Why not actually READ the facts we’ve given you?

        Rome has said that the SSPX are in schism and the excommunications have nothing to do with their status in the church. Cardinal Hoyos used overly diplomatic language when the talks were in progress but ‘irregular canonical situation’ basically means schism. The SSPX so not accept the authority of the Pope and they are not in communion with him so they are schismatic. However, I didn’t want to get down that rabbot hole.

        Editor: Post an official statement from the Pope which says the SSPX is in schism.Must be an official declaration. Not even the worst of the “liberals” claim that any more, so you need to substantiate your claim with concrete evidence.

        November 18, 2013 at 12:27 am
      • waynekelland

        It’s not wrong, it’s right but you’re a follower of the schismatic SSPX sect so you won’t believe it.

        Editor: Quote anything from the Pope after 1988 when Pope John Paul II issued his unjust and illegal decree of excommunication (later lifted by Pope Benedict), which states that the SSPX is in schism. Anything. Otherwise stop repeating lies. No more allegations of schism against the SSPX will be published here, without official documentation from either Pope Benedict or Pope Francis. Official documentation, not off the cuff personal opinions.

        Some time later: 19/11/13 – I relented on this when post after pointless post flooded into the moderation box and I truly felt sorry for this hugely misguided blogger. Hence I’ve released some more posts below. As of time of writing, however, 19/11/13, no more posts alleging schism will be approved. Please do not waste your time compiling them, WayneKelland.

        November 18, 2013 at 7:27 am
      • waynekelland

        Methinks the lady dost protest too much!

        Editor: and methinks Waynekelland doesn’t understand the issues. Hans Kung (who has written books arguing that there is no scriptural basis for the papacy) is a priest in good standing, while Fr Gruner, devoted to the Church and papacy, is “suspended”? Try connecting the dots – soon.

        November 18, 2013 at 8:57 pm
      • waynekelland

        Here you go, Ratzinger became Pope so you should be happy with this….

        Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the SSPX as a schism in his 1988 comments to the Bishops of Chile. His statements are worth quoting at length:

        “…the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church….If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration” (Speech to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988).

        It is a very interesting point that Ratzinger makes here – by renewing Tradition and being faithful to the Church’s own “interior realities”, the necessity for groups such as the SSPX becomes moot. But that is not the point – the point is that he considers the SSPX separated from the Church “by a clean break” and uses the word schism three times.

        Editor: that was a Cardinal speaking, right at the time of the excommunications in 1988. Here’s another cardinal appointed by the same Cardinal Ratzinger when he became Pope, saying the opposite, when representing Pope Benedict. In an interview, speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict, Cardinal Hoyos says around 5 times that the SSPX have never been in schism – check this report – and all commentators agree that Pope Benedict was anxious to regularise the irregular situation of the SSPX. That’s all it is. If you knew anything about schism and canon law you would know that by an act of disobedience to a pope nobody is in schism (or the entire novus ordo brigade would be in schism, everything that happens in their Masses is a succession of acts of disobedience: seen any lay people handling Communion lately? Heard any Latin during Mass?)

        November 18, 2013 at 7:34 am
      • waynekelland

        Cardinal Hoyos’ remarks were an off the cuff interview and unprepared so according to your comment above that doesn’t count.

        The Cardinal was speaking on behalf of the Pope. Five times he said the Society is not in schism. Hardly “off the cuff.”

        The SSPX didn’t just commit any little act of disobedience though did they? They consecrated four bishops without papal mandate and against the express command of the validly reigning Pope – according to canon law that is a formal schismatic act which incurs excommunication. The formal schismatic action doesn’t disappear just because the excommunications were lifted (which was an act of charity and sign of goodwill in the reconciliation talks continued by Benedict). Furthermore the SSPX continue in their schism because they refuse to acknowledge or follow the Pope’s obedience. None of their bishops are in communion with him, they even continued recently to ordain priests against his formal request. The SSPX is not in communion with Rome therefore they are in schism that is what it means. As one of your commentators remarked above, you cannot be in a state of quasi-schism (or quasi-communion). The SSPX’s ‘irregular situation’ is that they are in schism. I will also try to find the official confirmation of schism by the Cardinal before Hoyos (which the SSPX frequently half quote out of context in their erroneous publicity material).

        Handling holy communion (which is a legitimate action under current liturgical law) is not a schismatic act – whether you approve or not – and has nothing to do with the SSPX’s circumstances. Again, you deflect the issue by pointing at others. It’s all smoke and daggers with you lot, isn’t it!

        Editor: Canon 1323 # 4 – “no-one is liable to a penlty who, when violating a law or precept acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls”

        Archbishop Lefebvre acted in a case of necessity, when he perceived there to be a genuine threat to the Faith. And WOW was he right, prophetically so! The prohibition of consecrating bishops without papal mandate was waved in the case of China, where this routinely happens. And even the liberal Fr Z doesn’t believe they’re in schism It’s literally years since I’ve encountered anyone who seriously thinks the SSPX is in schism. Pope Francis has expressed schismatic views, for heaven’s sake – nobody in the SSPX has EVER said anything remotely as Modernist as this pope. Gerragrip.

        November 18, 2013 at 8:50 pm
      • waynekelland

        Try reading wiki…

        On 24 August 1996, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts responded to an enquiry from the Bishop of Sion (Switzerland), which had been referred to the Council by the Congregation for Bishops, by expressing its judgment[6] that “in the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements” (internal and external) for formal adherence to the schism “have been met”.[7] It added: “On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one’s own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement.”[8] It stated that its judgment was about the existence of the sin of schism, since for the existence of the canonical crime of schism, which entails excommunication, the conditions listed in canons 1323-1324 of the Code of Canon Law must also be met.[9]

        In 1999, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated that it was likely, but not certain, that the SSPX priests were [also] adhering to the schism, which would mean that they were excommunicated, but that people who, “because of their attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the members of the Church subject to him”, attended Mass celebrated by those priests, were not excommunicated, although, the longer they frequented SSPX chapels, the greater the likelihood of imbibing a schismatic mentality that would seem to involve adherence to the schism and so excommunication.[10] It judged that documentation sent to it in 1998 clearly indicated the extent to which “many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X” were in conformity with the formal definition of schism.[11]

        In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”[17] – ie schism!

        Editor: not exercising any ministry due to canonical difficulties is NOT schism. All of the preceding stuff was null and void due to the 2009 lifting of the excommunications. You really do not understand the issues here at all. Not at all.

        November 18, 2013 at 9:14 pm
      • waynekelland

        The day after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, Cardinal Gantin on behalf of Pope John Paul II declared on July 1, 1988 that the Archbishop had excommunicated himself by
        consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382, and also referred to
        the consecration as a schismatic act under canon 1364.1 which Pope John Paul II
        acknowledged in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (July 2, 1988).

        Editor: under Canon 1323 # 1:4 “No-one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity…” Read An Open Letter to Confused Catholics (from Archbishop Lefebvre, if you genuinely wish to grow in understanding of the alleged “schism”.

        November 18, 2013 at 9:31 pm
      • waynekelland

        Pope JP2:
        In the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta itself: “[T]his act [the unlawful episcopal consecrations] was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the consecration of bishops, whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence, such disobedience — which implies, in practice, the rejection of the Roman primacy — constitutes a schismatic act (para. 3)

        Cardinal Lara:
        “You bring to my attention a matter of importance,” Cardinal Castillo Lara responded. “You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July, 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows: ‘In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses, canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism: that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offense they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offence, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense, and concretizes the first and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one’s ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in ’76 and ’83, for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.

        With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism; the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate. I hope that this is helpful to you” (letter to John Beaumont, dated 26th May 1993).

        “[A] decision of the Apostolic See, whose authority has no superior, may be revised by no one, nor may anyone examine. judicially, its decision” (Vatican I, Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, Ch. III). “[T]here is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (Code of Canon Law, canon 333(3)).

        annex to letter of Cardinal Seper to Archbishop Lefebvre, 28th January 1978)

        Letter by Cardinal Seper annexed to Pope Paul VI’s letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, 28th January 1978:
        “[T]he Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considers that, by your declarations about submission to the Council and to the post-conciliar reforms of Paul VI — declarations with which your whole behavior and especially your illicit ordinations of priests are in accord — you have fallen into rave disobedience, and that all these declarations and acts, by their own logic, lead to schism” (ibid).

        Editor: I’ve only skimmed these – nothing here of any worth or authority: all Modernists like to accuse the SSPX of schism. Ask Hans Kung for his opinion. I’m only letting these daft posts through because there appears to be no personal nastiness in them and I feel sorry for you putting in all this pointless effort. Instead of quoting all this out of date stuff, why not write to Pope Francis yourself and ask him outright for a straight answer: IS the SSPX in schism. Then come back and tell us what he says in reply. I could save you the time, effort and postage but you won’t listen to me. Go on, write to the Pope. I challenge you.

        November 18, 2013 at 11:02 pm
      • waynekelland

        Here are some of the acts of disobedience to the Pope, or to those under him, perpetrated by this organization, to which many more could be added:

        1) The SSPX establishes seminaries, churches, chapels and priories throughout the world, without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts.

        2) It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by canon law.

        3) It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction.

        4) It gives holy communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists.

        5) It refused Pope Paul VI’s command to close the seminary at Econe and to wind up the SSPX.

        6) It carries out confirmations in other bishops’ dioceses contrary to the Council of Trent.

        7) It purports to accept John Paul II as Pope, and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator.

        8) Finally in 1988, the SSPX consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the express will of the Pope and then, in 1991, proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the SSPX itself recognizes, there is already a valid bishop.

        The conclusion which was drawn in the article “Schism, Obedience and the Society of Pius X” is just as relevant today: [H]ere is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of the Supreme Pontiff in matters of great importance for the visible unity of the Church. Put all of these things together, and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite eglise, an independent church. If this does not constitute schism, what does? (op cit, p.37).

        Editor: You’re posting an anti-SSPX article, without any documentary evidence, as proof that the Society is in schism? What level of hatred you clearly have for the old Faith, and the Mass that the saints died to preserve. Tragic.

        November 18, 2013 at 11:03 pm
      • waynekelland

        the extent of the real evidence for the Lefebvrist schism. All in all we have the following items of evidence:

        (a) The decision of the Pope that there is a schism.

        (b) The decision of the Catholic Church to the same effect.

        (c) The teaching of Cardinal Castillo Lara former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, again, that there is a schism.

        (d) The teaching of Pope Pius XII that an episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope is an offense against divine law as well as against human law (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).

        As a matter of canon law the act of 30th June 1988 fits the definition of schism contained in the Code of Canon Law. It is not any of us who decide this. The Church in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta does so. Canon law can only be interpreted by the law-maker (Canon 16).

        (f) Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus requires Catholics to obey decisions of the Holy See in matters of this kind.

        (g) The Society of St. Pius X is unable to cite from 2000 years of Tradition any pope doctor or council to justify episcopal consecration against the express will of the Pope.

        (h) The Society of St. Pius X and its apologists have to misquote a canonist in order to defend their case. In addition as we have shown in “Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X,” the SSPX even has to rewrite the Catholic definitions of schism and obedience to justify its position.

        Editor: you’re incredible. You cite pre-Vatican II sources (one at least, 1958) and ask for precedence – when this crisis in the Church is absolutely unique! We’ve never had popes telling us NOT to convert heretics and schismatics, but to pray with them! We’ve never had a pontiff appoint a priest who was a Freemason to concoct a new Mass etc. We’re in a state of emergency (as they are in China) which is why the Archbishop could, in conscience, consecrate bishops to ensure a truly Catholic Mass and priesthood.

        November 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm
      • waynekelland

        sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.]

        5. c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.]

        Editor: the same Vicar of Christ who excommunicated (illicitly) Archbishop Lefebvre, invited pagans and Protestants to pray with him to their false gods at Assisi. You seriously think he was a good pope who did the right thing by excommunicating an Archbishop whom he once described as “the best of my Generals”?

        November 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm
      • waynekelland

        The Vicar of Christ at the time (June 1988), Pope John Paul II, who was also the Supreme Law-maker and Law-Interpreter, declared so solemnly in the document “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta”

        3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.]

        5. c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.]

        Editor: the same Vicar of Christ who excommunicated (illicitly) Archbishop Lefebvre, invited pagans and Protestants to pray with him to their false gods at Assisi. You seriously think he was a good pope who did the right thing by excommunicating an Archbishop whom he once described as “the best of my Generals”?

        November 18, 2013 at 11:11 pm
  • editor


    Please note, that your posts are going directly into moderation, which means that I see them before publication. Hence my responses in each post since you insisted on alleging that the SSPX is in schism. I have released your posts because I felt sorry for you, having put such a lot of work into compiling them, and I have minimally corrected them, due to lack of time. However, as from now, no more posts on this topic will be published here.

    Please respect this decision – which is final. Thank you.

    November 19, 2013 at 12:11 am
  • Leo

    As I have stated previously, Father Gruner’s recent experience in Saint Peter’s Square is like something out of Stasiland. Vatican security were able to find Father Gruner in a crowd of tens of thousands, yet as I recall from the videos, when requested, they were not able to produce a copy of any document informing Father Gruner that he was suspended. Don’t anyone tell us that the filing system isn’t up to scratch.

    The Vatican security service’s bizarre behaviour towards this good and holy priest indicates to me that some in very high places are fully aware of the significance of Father Gruner’s promotion of the true Fatima Apostolate. It’s a very real demonstration, albeit in a back handed way, that the obstructors of Father Gruner realise that the Message of Fatima most certainly does not belong to the past. What in Heaven’s name did security think was going to happen? They don’t mind the Pope being driven around Saint Peter’s in an open topped vehicle, or impromptu interaction with crowds, but the prospect of Father Gruner having a word with the Pope gets them all spooky!

    Obviously someone is terrified that if Father Gruner was to speak to the Pope he might have the effect that so many of us desire, and the Consecration of Russia, requested by Our Lady, and commanded by Our Lord, would take place.


    After well over two dozen posts on this thread, you still have not informed readers of the specific “offense” of which Father Gruner is “guilty”.

    On the matter of schism, you appear to be trying to exercise your own parallel magisterium in declaring Catholics outside the Church. The words of Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988 that you quote, and likewise the words of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in 1996, don’t even mention the Society by name. And let’s not pretend that such imprecision is a matter of unforeseen insignificance. You haven’t been able, as requested, to produce any definitive statement from a Pope.

    Certainly, the false accusation that the Society has been schismatic since 30 June 1988 appears very difficult to dispel, no matter how much evidence is produced. As far as I know, it has yet to be explained how Bishops and priests who are not excommunicated, are outside the Church. An article by Christopher Ferrara, published in the Remnant Newspaper, and which was posted on the old blog more than once is worth reading:


    Saint Augustine stated that against facts there is no argument. Well, those Catholics take it upon themselves to issue private “magisterial” statements and declare that the Society is schismatic have some rather awkward facts to deal with.

    Please note very carefully, Waynekelland, that the Code of Canon Law nowhere says that illicit consecration of bishops is a schismatic offense. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, episcopal consecration without papal mandate is not found under the section of “Offences against Religions and the unity of the Church.”

    Since schism is defined by the same Code as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Canon 751), Archbishop Lefebvre could only be accused of schism if he had by the consecrations sought to start his own church or attempted to give jurisdiction to the bishops he consecrated. That was manifestly not the case. Facing the end of his life, and after strenuous and long lasting efforts in the struggle for Tradition, the Archbishop wanted to provide the means to ensure that the Mass, the orthodox priesthood and the means of preserving and protecting Tradition would be passed on. His concern was for the salvation of souls.

    During his sermon at the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre made it very clear that there was no intention or spirit of schism involved:

    “We are not schismatics! . . .There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. . . . It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!”

    It’s worth reading the magnificent sermon in full.

    [from http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm%5D

    If the Archbishop was schismatic and rejected the Pope’s authority to command or the primacy of the See of Rome, then why on earth would he have spent years in contact with Rome, and travelling there whenever requested? If he was schismatic and desirous to set up his own “church” the Archbishop wouldn’t have been one bit concerned with Rome and would no doubt have consecrated plenty of Bishops long before ill health and impending death closed in on him.

    Yes, the episcopal consecrations were against the will of the Pope. That in itself does not constitute schism. A lot more is required.

    “Schismatics properly so called are those who willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church.” – St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39, a.1
    Other Dominican theologians such as Pruemmer and Merkelbech further confirm that mere disobedience does not constitute schism.

    “Mere contempt of a precept or law of the Pope, no matter how grave or obstinate, is mere disobedience of a precept, and therefore not schismatic in its essence, and hence, does not separate one from the Church.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q.12, a. 1 ad 3

    That the consecration of bishops cannot be an intrinsically schismatic act is evident under canon law. Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the punishment for illicitly consecrating bishops was not excommunication but mere suspension (this was changed to excommunication in 1951). However, if consecrating bishops without papal mandate were an inherently schismatic offense, then the 1917 Code would have had to require excommunication for this offense, because the very same Code teaches, as the 1983 Code does, that schismatics incur latae sententiae excommunication (Canon 2314 in the 1917 Code; Canon 1382 in the 1983 Code). Therefore, consecrating bishops without papal mandate is not an inherently schismatic offense. To state otherwise lacks foundation.

    There is a very significant point that needs to be made in relation to the episcopal conscecrations on 30 June 1988. When Archbishop Lefebvre was sent the canonical warning by Cardinal Gantin on June 17, 1988, the warning did not include mention of schism anywhere. Don’t anyone tell me that that was some accidental oversight and omission.

    The Pope, as supreme legislator, can add new canons to the Code. But he cannot make something schismatic that is not inherently so.

    Archbishop Lefebvre knew that when he acted, as a true Catholic Bishop, out of grave concern for the salvation of souls, and “handed on what I have received”.

    Canon 751 of the 1983 Code, as stated previously, defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches this manifestly: “Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the Society has ever denied the Pope’s authority to command. I think the Archbishop’s attitude has been spelt out. If anyone thinks the Society’s position has changed one iota, they ought to read the Declaration of the Society’s General Chapter last year. It includes the following:

    “We reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord Himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth…”

    How many of those modernist Bishops and priests who declare the Society “schismatic” would put their names to that Declaration?

    November 19, 2013 at 12:17 am
    • editor


      I can’t thank you enough for that thoroughly documented post. Only a malicious spirit would continue to assert the false charge of schism against the Society in the face of all the concrete facts which you have provided. I prefer to think of Waynekelland as having been deceived by the propaganda, so let’s see if I’m correct – we’ll soon know if he comes on here to thank you for your first class, irrefutable comment.

      You can now give up your day job – you’ve shot right to the top of the pay scale, with a Christmas bonus to come 🙂

      November 19, 2013 at 10:23 am
    • waynekelland

      Whatever were our opinions about the Council’s various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be whole hearted and without reserve; it must be willing and prepared to give them the service of our thought, action and conduct. The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrine must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit. (Paul VI to the Roman Curia, 23 April, 1966)

      November 23, 2013 at 2:17 am
      • Josephine


        I find it hard to believe Pope Paul said that because his successors said differently, and a cardinal (can’t remember his name) said not that long ago that it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to question Vatican II. It wasn’t a dogmatic council and Pope John XXIII actually said that in his opening address. He said the Council would deliberately not define new dogma but only look at ways to present the teachings to the modern world. Paul VI speaking to the Roman Curia is not binding anyway, it’s probably on the same level as Pope Francis speaking to journalists. Also, that was 1966 and a few years later Paul VI was agonising over the state of the Church. I bet he realised, too late, the damage VII had done.

        There’s an interesting thread from Fr Z’s site which is about Vatican II being the cause of the “institutional collapse” of the Church.

        November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        I don’t think Waynekelland is a liberal. I would guess they’re conservative in their private life. They seem to like rank. If the Pope and the Cardinals say it’s so then it is.
        This is probably a natural virtue that they have. How do common peasants convince them that Cardinals are wrong?
        I don’t know. Correct me if I’m wrong W.

        November 23, 2013 at 6:54 pm
      • waynekelland

        What does it matter if I’m liberal or conservative? I look to authoritive sources within the church to judge the status of the SSPX and interpret fidelity to the interpretation of V2. You cannot deny and twist canon law and the lawful decisions by numerous cardinals and popes. An important principle under canon law is that the law maker ultimately decides how the law is to be interpreted. The SSPX do not get to determine their status, the Pope and curia do.

        Editor: which pope? Pope John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications and made clear that they are in an irregular situation but not excommunicated. He overturned the ruling of the Bishop in Hawaii who excommunicated six people for taking ALL the sacraments at an SSPX chapel. So, I repeat – which pope do we obey?

        November 24, 2013 at 12:41 am
  • crofterlady

    Don’t bother, Leo! She made the same promise to me and the pay is rubbish!

    November 19, 2013 at 11:20 am
    • editor


      November 19, 2013 at 2:54 pm
  • Leo

    Surely not, Crofter Lady. You mustn’t be getting paid the same as the rest of us.

    As someone once said to me, Editor:

    “Sure, you’re cheap at half the price.”

    November 19, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    • editor


      And as someone once said to me, a trouble shared, is a trouble doubled ! Just when I’d agreed to babysit twins 🙂

      November 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm
  • editor

    Is not this report priceless? And think of this. Were anyone to write to this cardinal and ask him for permission to attend an SSPX Mass, he’d scream “schism” at the top of his apostate voice. Truly, you just could not make this stuff up! Note, this apostate is one of the cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to advise him on reforming the curia (remember that “urgent” task?) Truly, up, you could not make this stuff!

    November 21, 2013 at 12:33 am
    • waynekelland

      You are misinterpreting Cardinal Marx’s comments to deflect attention and blame from the SSPX’s ”irregular canonical situation’.

      Editor: nope – just asking for a level playing field. How can the SSPX be in schism for adhering to Tradition, while Cardinal Marx is “in good standing” when he even doubts the existence of God? Gerragrip!

      November 24, 2013 at 1:04 am
  • 3littleshepherds

    It does matter. If you are a liberal especially a radical one then you might not even believe in Dogma. You might just have an agenda against the Fr. Gruner, etc. because you hate what they stand for. I’m not saying All liberals are like that, either, just to be clear. However if that’s the case then debating is useless.

    I don’t pick up from any of your comments that that’s where you’re coming from. If you are a decent, Mass going Catholic, who does accept the teaching of the Church then all that I do see in your comments is that you have a love of authority. That means if there were a reversal in the future and the Pope and Bishops were to return to Tradition and think exactly like Fr. Gruner and Bishop Fellay, you would also.
    You might just appear that way because you’re avoiding the subjective, but there are signs that that’s not the case. I would say you’re over fifty, a cradle Catholic, and perhaps from a military background?

    November 24, 2013 at 3:31 pm
    • waynekelland

      I am neither a radical liberal, liberal or conservative. I am a middle of the road politics kind. I definitely am not over 50 or ex-military. However I was born and raised as catholic and continue to practice my faith. You seem quite useless at double guessing what I am, not that it is relevant to the topic at hand.

      I am not overly in love with authority at all but I recognise what is the official and authoritive teaching of the church. There can be no future papal reversal of the V2. Like it or not, it is a valid council properly convened and promulgated by the reigning popes. It is part of the official magisterium of the church to which assent is required. Pope Francis recently made this abundantly crystal clear.

      November 24, 2013 at 4:21 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        You were born post Vatican II? What brought your attention to Fr. Gruner? I’ve never met any Catholic outside of the Traditional ones who even know who he is.
        What do you think about modernism? It does matter.

        November 24, 2013 at 7:15 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: