Author Topic: Did Fr. Gruner back Bp. Williamson completely? (Read 4219 times)

hollingsworth · « **on:** June 07, 2015, 10:21:26 AM »

I found this article by Hugh Akins to be very interesting. http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/06/fr-gruner-his-work-was-her-work.html.
I quote only a portion of the article below. It is entitled “His Work Was Her Work- and It Must Continue”

Mr. Aikins highlights opinions of the late Fr. Gruner which he rarely expressed in public, but, nevertheless, felt deeply about. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Aikins about most of the things he highlights below, except for his assertion that Fr. Gruner backed Bp. Williamson completely and the SSPX Resistance. That was not apparent to very many people. His (business) associate John Vennari certainly does not appear to back the bishop or the Resistance completely. In fact, Vennari scarcely makes mention of them ever. CFN articles and editorials seem to avoid the good bishop like the plague. I don’t recall that CFN has ever discussed the Resistance, cursorily, much less in depth. What is more, I don’t remember Fr. Gruner or John Vennari discussing Bp. Williamson and the Resistance in any of their weekly video sessions together. If Fr. Gruner felt as he did about Bp. Williamson, how could it not have gotten out before his death? I mean, how in the world could anyone have gotten away with inviting Bp. Fellay to do his funeral Mass, without at least minor opposition from some quarter? But there didn’t appear to be any. All I can conclude is this: Fr. Gruner must have kept his real views about Bp. Williamson so absolutely secret that even John Vennari was not aware of them. Or surely he would have said something prior to Bp. Fellay’s being invited, wouldn’t he have? Any comments?

Quote from Hugh Aikin's article:

Quote

While Father Gruner was rarely heard to voice certain opinions in public, he definitely confided to his friends, including this editor,

•   His unshaken conviction of Rome’s wholesale breakaway from the Catholic Faith;
•   His absolute certainty of the glories of the Traditional Mass and the unspeakable horrors of the New Mass;
•   His wholehearted support of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX and complete backing of Bishop Williamson and the SSPX Resistance;
•   His positive assuredness of the anti-Syllabus make-up of the most cherished of modern man’s political ideas and systems, democracy among the worst with American constitutionalism nothing less than a formula for public atheism;
•   His unshaken certitude of the very grave and immediate threat of International Jєωry and the duty of every Catholic devoted to the Reign of Jesus and Mary to expose and fight against it;
•   His firm belief that Israel was behind 9/11 and the ever-escalating and utterly phony war on terror;
•   His complete conviction that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was and is a gigantic hoax (which is the firm conviction of every man who honestly researches the subject);
•   As mentioned, too, his very favorable view and strong support of the League of Christ the King, once even offering to have the League join forces with his Fatima Center in a more cogent even if semi-official partnership.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2015, 09:04:15 PM »

Gosh, I expected someone to come forward and hit this one out of the park. Why is it so difficult to either confirm Fr. Gruner's full backing of Bp. Williamson, or to deny it? Were these opinions and views of Fr. Gruner so well hidden that nobody could ever have been expected to know them in his lifetime? And, if Fr. Gruner backed the bishop and the "resistance" so fervently, whose interests would be served in withholding the knowledge of that alleged support from the traditional Catholic public?

AJNC · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2015, 09:58:02 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Gosh, I expected someone to come forward and hit this one out of the park. Why is it so difficult to either confirm Fr. Gruner's full backing of Bp. Williamson, or to deny it? Were these opinions and views of Fr. Gruner so well hidden that nobody could ever have been expected to know them in his lifetime? And, if Fr. Gruner backed the bishop and the "resistance" so fervently, whose interests would be served in withholding the knowledge of that alleged support from the traditional Catholic public?

Did Fr Gruner & company ever come out in the open on the question whether the Sr Lucia everyone knew from 1967 upto her death was the real one or a fake?. Her phrase " diabolical disorientation" was quoted as if she was the true Sr Lucia. But the famous interview she gave in 1992 to Cardinal Padiraya, Bishop Michaelappa, Fr Pachechos and Carlos Evaristo was debunked as faked.

Did Fr Gruner support or not support the Resistance? Pick either answer and then toss a coin. There you will have it.

donkath · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2015, 09:59:37 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I found this article by Hugh Akins to be very interesting. http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/06/fr-gruner-his-work-was-her-work.html.
I quote only a portion of the article below. It is entitled “His Work Was Her Work- and It Must Continue”

Mr. Aikins highlights opinions of the late Fr. Gruner which he rarely expressed in public, but, nevertheless, felt deeply about. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Aikins about most of the things he highlights below, except for his assertion that Fr. Gruner backed Bp. Williamson completely and the SSPX Resistance. That was not apparent to very many people. His (business) associate John Vennari certainly does not appear to back the bishop or the Resistance completely. In fact, Vennari scarcely makes mention of them ever. CFN articles and editorials seem to avoid the good bishop like the plague. I don’t recall that CFN has ever discussed the Resistance, cursorily, much less in depth. What is more, I don’t remember Fr. Gruner or John Vennari discussing Bp. Williamson and the Resistance in any of their weekly video sessions together. If Fr. Gruner felt as he did about Bp. Williamson, how could it not have gotten out before his death? I mean, how in the world could anyone have gotten away with inviting Bp. Fellay to do his funeral Mass, without at least minor opposition from some quarter? But there didn’t appear to be any. All I can conclude is this: Fr. Gruner must have kept his real views about Bp. Williamson so absolutely secret that even John Vennari was not aware of them. Or surely he would have said something prior to Bp. Fellay’s being invited, wouldn’t he have? Any comments?

Quote from Hugh Aikin's article:
Quote
While Father Gruner was rarely heard to voice certain opinions in public, he definitely confided to his friends, including this editor,

•   His unshaken conviction of Rome’s wholesale breakaway from the Catholic Faith;
•   His absolute certainty of the glories of the Traditional Mass and the unspeakable horrors of the New Mass;
•   His wholehearted support of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX and complete backing of Bishop Williamson and the SSPX Resistance;
•   His positive assuredness of the anti-Syllabus make-up of the most cherished of modern man’s political ideas and systems, democracy among the worst with American constitutionalism nothing less than a formula for public atheism;
•   His unshaken certitude of the very grave and immediate threat of International Jєωry and the duty of every Catholic devoted to the Reign of Jesus and Mary to expose and fight against it;
•   His firm belief that Israel was behind 9/11 and the ever-escalating and utterly phony war on terror;
•   His complete conviction that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was and is a gigantic hoax (which is the firm conviction of every man who honestly researches the subject);
•   As mentioned, too, his very favorable view and strong support of the League of Christ the King, once even offering to have the League join forces with his Fatima Center in a more cogent even if semi-official partnership.

Quote

..I mean, how in the world could anyone have gotten away with inviting Bp. Fellay to do his funeral Mass,...

Is it an established fact that B. Fellay was 'invited(?) to say Fr. Gruner's funeral Mass?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2015, 10:55:00 PM »

Quote

Is it an established fact that B. Fellay was 'invited(?) to say Fr. Gruner's funeral Mass?

Well, someone had to invite him. He didn't just fly over and commandeer the event. In all likelihood, Gruner's niece, encouraged by top Society brass and with the full approval of John Vennari, tapped the SG, who was on his way anyway, just itching to tell the folks in Arcadia the following day that he had been appointed official judge of Society priests by the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith.

donkath · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2015, 11:24:05 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Is it an established fact that B. Fellay was 'invited(?) to say Fr. Gruner's funeral Mass?

Well, someone had to invite him. He didn't just fly over and commandeer the event. In all likelihood, Gruner's niece, encouraged by top Society brass and with the full approval of John Vennari, tapped the SG, who was on his way anyway, just itching to tell the folks in Arcadia the following day that he had been appointed official judge of Society priests by the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith.

Well, wouldn't this give you some explanation of your initial query?

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2015, 08:12:00 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Gosh, I expected someone to come forward and hit this one out of the park. Why is it so difficult to either confirm Fr. Gruner's full backing of Bp. Williamson, or to deny it? Were these opinions and views of Fr. Gruner so well hidden that nobody could ever have been expected to know them in his lifetime? And, if Fr. Gruner backed the bishop and the "resistance" so fervently, whose interests would be served in withholding the knowledge of that alleged support from the traditional Catholic public?

If a "full support" was there, you would not have to be asking this question. I think that sympathetic to, might be possible, but?

I do not think that Father Gruner would get involved in others' squabbles as it would do no good for his primary lifelong focus on Fatima. These things of SSPXism simply were not directly relevant to his campaign.

He denied being irregular as some Romans portrayed him, and the Indulters, Remnant, and CFN crowd are Novus Ordo certified as "regular" and safe. It is natural that they would be his home port for "Tradition".

hollingsworth · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2015, 10:16:51 AM »

J. Paul:

Quote

He denied being irregular as some Romans portrayed him, and the Indulters, Remnant, and CFN crowd are Novus Ordo certified as "regular" and safe. It is natural that they would be his home port for "Tradition".

Well then, that being the case, was not Fr. Gruner living something of a lie? If he fully supported the bishop and the "resistance," yet maintained this "natural" facade, then he wasn't living within the truth as he himself perceived it. How could one conclude otherwise?

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** June 10, 2015, 07:20:34 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

J. Paul:
Quote
He denied being irregular as some Romans portrayed him, and the Indulters, Remnant, and CFN crowd are Novus Ordo certified as "regular" and safe. It is natural that they would be his home port for "Tradition".

Well then, that being the case, was not Fr. Gruner living something of a lie? If he fully supported the bishop and the "resistance," yet maintained this "natural" facade, then he wasn't living within the truth as he himself perceived it. How could one conclude otherwise?

No, I just think that he did not see the SSPX/resistance squabble as his fight. It really was not. His home ground was his Fatima apostolate. Going public in supporting one side or the other would have painted a target upon his back for some one, and hindered his efforts.

Jaynek · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2015, 08:14:48 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Is it an established fact that B. Fellay was 'invited(?) to say Fr. Gruner's funeral Mass?

Well, someone had to invite him. He didn't just fly over and commandeer the event. In all likelihood, Gruner's niece, encouraged by top Society brass and with the full approval of John Vennari, tapped the SG, who was on his way anyway, just itching to tell the folks in Arcadia the following day that he had been appointed official judge of Society priests by the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith.

Fr. Gruner's niece became a trad due to his influence. She greatly admired and loved him. I find it unlikely that she would have arranged a funeral for him that went against his wishes. If Fr. Gruner had supported of Bp. Williamson / opposed Bp. Fellay, I would have expected the niece to know and to make the funeral arrangements accordingly.

For what it's worth, my impression is that Fr. Gruner did not take sides on this matter. He was willing to work with anyone who supported the message of Fatima.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2015, 10:56:04 AM »

Jaynek:

Quote

Fr. Gruner's niece became a trad due to his influence. She greatly admired and loved him. I find it unlikely that she would have arranged a funeral for him that went against his wishes. If Fr. Gruner had supported of Bp. Williamson / opposed Bp. Fellay, I would have expected the niece to know and to make the funeral arrangements accordingly.

One can argue that she did not know his wishes, so she made arrangements according to her own wishes. But you argue logically. It seems rather unlikely that she arranged for a celebrant at his funeral, whose choice, she had reason to believe, might go against his wishes.
But the thread began over an assertion by Hugh Aikins that Fr. Gruner, though silent on the matter, was fully in support of Bp. Williamson and the "resistance." I found that hard to believe when I read it the first time. I find it equally hard to believe now. Fr. Gruner's business associate, John Vennari, is certainly not a backer of Bp. Williamson. In fact, truth be told, he is virulently opposed to Bp. Williamson and the "resistance." (I use the phrase "virulently opposed" advisedly). Vennari supports Fellay & Co., and the editorial position of the CFN pretty well proves that. Fr. Gruner owned CFN. Gruner and Vennari did a weekly videoed program together, discussing a variety of topics. These two, it seems, were always on the same page with one another. I doubt that they would have gotten along as well as they did had their basic attitudes towards Bp. Williamson actually differed that markedly. But if so, then Fr. Gruner was either a pretty good actor, or able to conceal successfully from Vennari his true feelings about the bishop.

Jaynek · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2015, 11:18:01 AM »

"His wholehearted support of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX and complete backing of Bishop Williamson and the SSPX Resistance."

It is hard to know exactly what Mr. Akin means by "complete backing". Personally, I would not call it "complete backing" if one keeps secret one's support.

In light of how little evidence there is that Fr. Gruner held this position, I question just how well Mr. Akin understood what he heard from Fr. Gruner.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2015, 11:22:45 AM »

Jaynek:

Quote

It is hard to know exactly what Mr. Akin means by "complete backing". Personally, I would not call it "complete backing" if one keeps secret one's support.

In light of how little evidence there is that Fr. Gruner held this position, I question just how well Mr. Akin understood what he heard from Fr. Gruner.

Well yeah, Jaynek! Exactly! We are in absolute agreement. It just does not compute.

Jaynek · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2015, 11:36:33 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Jaynek:
Quote
It is hard to know exactly what Mr. Akin means by "complete backing". Personally, I would not call it "complete backing" if one keeps secret one's support.

In light of how little evidence there is that Fr. Gruner held this position, I question just how well Mr. Akin understood what he heard from Fr. Gruner.

Well yeah, Jaynek! Exactly! We are in absolute agreement. It just does not compute.

I would not be surprised if Fr. Gruner spoke positively about Bishop Williamson. However Fr. Gruner did not want to publicly take sides, so I do not think it is reasonable to call his position "complete backing". I suspect that Mr. Akin is indulging in wishful thinking.

JPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2015, 12:16:22 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Jaynek:
Quote
It is hard to know exactly what Mr. Akin means by "complete backing". Personally, I would not call it "complete backing" if one keeps secret one's support.

In light of how little evidence there is that Fr. Gruner held this position, I question just how well Mr. Akin understood what he heard from Fr. Gruner.

Well yeah, Jaynek! Exactly! We are in absolute agreement. It just does not compute.

That is likely the whole of it. We must remember that each of us hears and interprets the actions of others according to our own biases, or in some cases agendas, and so what we end up with is how any such individual characterizes another's actions to mean this or that.

Jaynek makes the same point that I did, and that was, that Father wanted above all to promote his message, and would logically not want it prejudiced or overshadowed, by joining into personal clerical battles on one side or another.