"Fr." Gruner can "say" the TLM all he wants; he was not ordained to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead. He is a presider dressing as a priest.
I had never heard this accusation that Father Gruner was not validly ordained?
Is the basis of the accusation only because the ordination was done in the post Vatican II ordination rite ?
If so, why didn't he get conditionally ordained ? He knows all the trad Bishops.
He believes he was validly ordained because he was ordained in the Italian language and he maintains that the core form of the words were not changed.
I'm not justifying or defending him here, that is just his defense as far as I know.
I would not attend his mass for the doubt of his ordination. I personally think he could do more good if he accepted the sedevacantist position, but I don't doubt that his intentions are good.
I've not heard that he was ordained in the Italian language, but I have heard him speak of his ordination and he was, indeed, ordained in the New Rite. He found traditional Catholics support his apostolate more than Novus Ordo Catholics. I'm not exactly sure when he started to say the traditional Mass, but I suspect it was around the same time.
I was at a conference in South Bend, Indiana several years ago where he spoke. I was quite amazed that, after giving his talk, he went into a tirade against sedevacantism, which had nothing to do with his talk and wasn't a topic of the conference. The tirade lasted about 10 minutes. At the time, I barely knew anything about the sedevacantist thesis and was very confused as he rambled and made absolutely no sense.
He frequently declares that he has all kinds of support for his Fatima message, but that support seems fictitious, for I have never seen any action to back up that supposed support.
Topic: What is Fr. Gruners angle? (Read 6819 times)