There is a video series now where Fr. Gruner discusses details of this election
and things that led up to it. It's from Fatima TV. I recommend it.
Part One is a conversation with John Vennari where Fr. and Mr. Vennari go
into some pretty fascinating aspects of history and recent books and news
articles.
You might want to view this Part One two times. At the end, around minute
16, they touch on some things that have an effect on the earlier minutes.
For example, they say that there has been a lot of corruption in the Vatican.
This is why Pope Benedict's butler turned over those personal letters in the
Vatileaks situation, because he said, the corruption is so bad that not even
the Pope is aware of some of it.
They say that it has been the Cardinal Secretary of State that has been
acting as an obstructionist to papal reforms, and this goes back to the
first one after Vatican II, Cardinal Cassaroli, under Paul VI. JPII replaced
him with Cardinal Sodano, who did no better, in fact in some regards
worse than Cassaroli. Then after him came Cardinal Bertone, who again
was no great improvement, even though getting Sodano out was a relief for
some of the Faithful.
They have not mentioned the current state of affairs, when the election of
a new pope generally entails the replacement of all the curia, such that a
new person should be taking the place of Cardinal Bertone soon, and
Bertone should have tendered his resignation already, but has he?
Then they say that these principles have a direct bearing on the Fatima
situation, because it has been the Secretary of State that has been the one
principally blocking the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate
Heart of Mary. For example, in 1984, when JPII came very close to doing
it (although once again, it was not with the corroborration of the world's
bishops) Fr. Gruner says that JPII got to the point of the specific words he
was to use, and he asked his curia if it would be a good idea to use the
word "Russia" in his prayer, and right away, his advisors said, "No, no, Holy
Father! Do not use the word 'Russia' because the Russian Orthodox would
be offended!" And at the time, JPII told the world twice on the same day,
that he had not done it that day as Our Lady had requested, for she is still
waiting the Consecration.
In the first video above, Chris Ferrara describes the lawyer's outlook on
the use of the word Russia, by saying that the enemies of Fatima have
proven that "RUSSIA" is important, because when they are asked, "Well, if
it is as you claim, that whether the Pope mentions 'Russia' or not in
the Consecration is NOT important, then why is it that they haven't
used it?" The reason is, obviously, they haven't used "Russia" because
using "Russia" IS important, and the enemies of Fatima know this, which
is why they have risen to the obstruction of the Pope's mention of Russia.
The curia, and other officials in the Church's highest offices have been
called "wolves," even by Benedict XVI, when he mentioned this even
before his election in 2005. We can most reasonably interpret this as
meaning "wolves in sheep's clothing" who are devouring the souls of the
Faithful. And it is this pack of wolves, or at least a portion of them, who
have convened for the election of a new pope.
Fr. Gruner answers the canard that whoever is elected pope should never
resign because it is the will of the Holy Ghost that he was elected, and no
man has the right to say "no" to the Holy Ghost. He says that there are
3 ways it can be the will of the Holy Ghost. First, the election of a particular
man may be the positive will of the Holy Ghost, that this is the man who
God has prepared from eternity to guide the Church at this time. Second,
the Holy Ghost may simply ALLOW a man to become pope, even if he is
not the best one for the job. And third, the Holy Ghost may allow even the
worst possible choice for pope to be elected because He is giving the
Church a chastisement due to the sins of the Faithful.
Fr. retells the story that some time after his election Benedict XVI went to
the tomb of Pope Celestine who had resigned 600 years ago. He had also
visited the prison where Celestine had been confined by his successor and
where he had died. Benedict removed his pallium, which is a special
vestment only the cardinals wear on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, made
of lambs wool on July 21st for this special Feast day, and he placed his
pallium at Celestine's tomb. That was a symbolic act that should have told
us back then, that Benedict was thinking of resigning himself, for he did
in fact do so, a few years later.
Fr. Gruner goes into an explanation of what had happend 600 years ago. He
says that the conclave had been unable to elect a pope for 2 years, and this
lone hermit wrote a scathing letter to them telling them that they should
do their duty and elect a pope. So the conclave then elected the hermit!
They came to his cell, and took him out under his protest, to the Vatican,
where they elected him, and he reluctantly accepted, but after only 6
months when it had become clear that he had no qualifications for the job
and was unable to fulfill its duties, he resigned. But then his successor
had him imprisoned to make sure that there would be no confusion among
the Faithful as to who was truly Pope, as was the case in the Great Western
Schism when 3 different men had simultaneously been claiming to be Pope,
with many Faithful following each of the 3.
In a conversation I had with a friend (this is not on the video) we noted that
nobody has been able to peg anything "Peter" about Pope Francis, and that
therefore he cannot be thought of as "Peter the Roman" as the prophsy of
St. Malachy has as the last pope mentioned. All the popes before Peter the
Roman can be explained, up to Benedict XVI. But Francis cannot be
explained. My friend is a sede. He says that since Bergoglio was ordainded
a priest in December of 1969, the ordination rite had already been replaced
with an invalid one, and therefore the See of Peter is being claimed by an
imposter who is not even a priest, let alone a bishop. And this is how the
prophesy of St. Malachy yet stands, for Peter the Roman has still not been
elected. Benedict XVI was ordained priest before the change, so he was at
least a priest, my friend says, but he was not a bishop for he was consecrated
after the invalid rite replaced the bishop's consecration formula. I asked him
then how could Benedict XVI be a fulfillment of Malachy's prophesy as "the
glory of the olive" (since olive trees are part of the Benedictine symbol) if he
was not really a bishop? He has no answer for that.
Topic: Father Gruner Video (Read 987 times)