From Dr. Peter Chojnowski
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/08/here-is-article-that-john-vennari.html

Here is an article that John Vennari published in 2013 concerning his reflections on the negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican. This article confirms what I long knew about John from innumerable conversations with him, the ones that come to mind are those which took place in Rome and those we had by phone immediately after the death of Fr. Gruner, that even though he was a consistent supporter of the SSPX until his death, he was vehemently against any agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican in the current circuмstances. This, even though I never heard him speak publicly about the SSPX Resistance, which I know he did not support. One concrete bit of empirical evidence for this is that he never, to my knowledge, mentioned the SSPX Resistance in the pages of Catholic Family News or in any of his lectures. In private, of course, the topic was discussed quite often.
 
 John's thesis, discussed in the article below, was confirmed to me by Bishop Fellay when I met him in February 2006 in Denver, Colorado. This was less than a year after Josef Ratzinger/Benedict XVI claimed the papacy in April of 2005. When I inquired into the details of the conversation that the bishop had with Benedict, Bishop Fellay mentioned that, in the course of his conversation with Benedict, Benedict stated that, "Well, of course, when you come in, you will have to teach the new thinkers in your seminaries [i.e., the New Theologians]."

Mr.G says "So Bishop Fellay knew this was the goal back in 2006 yet he still tried to make a deal with them! So how can anyone blame the Resistance for pointing out what Bishop Fellay admits to."  Now back to Dr. Peter Chojnowski:

 We see, in the letter of Cardinal Mueller of May 2017, that this is still the case some 11 years later.
 
 
 Archbishop Di Noia Admits:
 The Goal is to Convert SSPX
 to Conciliar Thinking
 
 “This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”
 – Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, newly-appointed Vice-Prefect of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei
 
 By John Vennari
 
 In 1946, Father Garrigou-Lagrange warned in his landmark article against the modernist New Theology, “Those who have attempted to attend the classes of the masters of modernist thought in order to convert them have allowed themselves to be converted by them.”
 It is clear the same ruse is being applied to the Society of St. Pius X.

Vatican Insider posted a July 2 interview with Joseph Augustine Di Noia, newly-appointed Vice-Prefect of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei.
 Though the interview deserves a much fuller treatment, we will spotlight for now Archbishop Di Noia’s remarkable comments about the Society of St. Pius X and modern Judaism. He says, “After three years of dialogue [the doctrinal discussions] we still need to understand what the SSPX position is on the Jєωιѕн Community and Judaism. ”
After three years the Vatican still does not understand what is the SSPX’s position on these points? This should be no great mystery.
 The SSPX position is nothing more than the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church throughout the ages, that all non-Catholics, Jєωs included, must convert to the Catholic Church for salvation. There is no salvation outside the Church.

The SSPX position is what the Church has always taught: the Old Covenant is superseded and made obsolete by the New. Those who are still members of non-Catholic societies, such as Judaism or Protestantism, can only be saved by leaving their false positions and joining the one true Church that Christ established.

This should not be a difficult concept for a Catholic.
 The position of the Society of St. Pius X can also be summarized in Pius XI’s loving prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs contained in the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Pius wished to be recited in every Catholic Church on the Feast of Christ the King: “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may It now descend upon them, a laver of redemption and of life.”

Archbishop Di Noia then grants us a great favor He openly admits something we have long surmised: that the purpose of the Vatican’s discussions with the SSPX, and its work for so-called “regularization,” is to convert the SSPX to Conciliar thinking.
 Here is the key section of the interview. Archbishop Di Noia says:

“The Church’s deep commitment to reconciliation with the Jєωιѕн People is personified today by Benedict XVI. The Ecuмenical Council wrought a fundamental change. Then John Paul II, above all others, brought home Paul’s message that Judaism and Jєωs have a unique place in salvation history. Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s Pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”
 First of all, it is not accurate to invoke Saint Paul in this new enterprise, for it is Saint Paul who declares explicitly that Our Lord’s New Covenant “has made obsolete the former one,” that is, made obsolete the old Judaic Covenant. (Heb. 8:13) No Pope has the authority to reject this Scriptural truth, as the Word of God is infallible, and the Church has always interpreted this verse accordintly. The new approach mentioned by Archbishop Di Noia is a case of twisting the words of Saint Paul to fit the new ecuмenical orientation. This is a old tactic of ecuмenists, but too much to detail at the moment.
 Most important, however, are the terms “fundamental change” and “major shift”. Di Noia admits that Vatican II’s approach, and the subsequent orientation of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are a change, a shift. We are not receiving the Catholic Faith from them “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as is commanded by Vatican I and the Oath Against Modernism, but a major shift, a change.

Once again, we see proof that Vatican II is a rupture with the past, which cannot realistically be accepted by means of a “hermeneutic of continuity.” Here, there is no continuity.

Archbishop di Noia then delivers the payload:

“Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jєωιѕн People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”

There you have it. Traditional Catholics are expected to effectively abandon the perennial truths of the Catholic Faith regarding the absolute necessity for non-Catholics – Jєωs included – to leave their religious affiliations and convert to Christ’s one true Church. Again, we see no “hermeneutic of continuity” here, but a “new concept” This is neo-Modernisn in action, something no Catholic is bound to accept. In fact, our first duty is to resist.
 And yes, they will embark on a program of “convincing us” of these modernist tenets, and are content to take the long period of time such convincing will require.

How much more explicit need he be?

Today’s Vatican would prefer we effectively discard the infallible decree of the Council of Florence which teaches:

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Today’s Church leaders, in the name of Vatican II novelties, would prefer we no longer quote Our Lord Himself who said to the Jєωs of his day, “If you do not believe that I am He [the Messiah], you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24); or that we quote His words to the Jєωs, “You search the Scripture because in them you think you have life everlasting. And it is they that bear witness to Me, yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40).

Today’s post-Concliar Vatican is no doubt embarrassed by Saint John who, faithful to Our Lord’s teaching, says likewise, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2: 22)
 For what is Pope John Paul’s major contribution to Jєωιѕн Catholic relations, but the promotion of the new belief that Jєωs have their own unique Covenant with God and need not convert to the Catholic Church for salvation.

Sergio Itzhak Minerbi, Israel’s former Ambassador to the Ivory Coast, Belgium, praised John Paul’s new approach to Judaism: “For centuries, the Church has claimed to be the ‘true Israel’, thus substituting the Jєωιѕн religion. It is therefore important that, in a meeting with the Jєωιѕн community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, the Pope announced his respect for ‘the people of God, of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked by God’.”
 Likewise Abraham Foxman from the Jєωιѕн Anti-Defamation League, no friend of the Catholic Church, celebrated Pope John Paul II as the man who “rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism,” that is, rejected the Catholic truth that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ superseded and made obsolete the Old Judaic Covenant.

And what is Pope Benedict’s novel approach to the Jєωιѕн people, but the claim that Jєωs and Catholics worship the same God, and that Jєωs and Catholics have a “common mission” to be a witness to God in the world, with no mention of the need for the Jєωs to convert.
 At the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє in 2010, Pope Benedict said, “Christians and Jєωs share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful.”

Yet we know that Jєωs and Christians do not worship the same God. Jєωs, alas, reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. It is Saint John, the Apostle of Love, who writes: “He who honereth not the Son, honereth not the Father, who hath sent Him” (John 5:23).

Finally, the new approach to be a “common witness” to God along with Jєωs implicitly demands we no longer speak of the need for their conversion to Christ’s one true Church for salvation. It effectively tells Jєωs they have the moral freedom to live their lives as if Jesus Christ were a fraud and imposter.
 Yet it is this new approach that Archbishop Di Noia openly admits that traditional Catholics are expected to accept. Clearly, traditional Catholics will be ‘worked on’ to be persuaded of this new orientation.

We thank Archbishop Di Noia for saying openly what many of us have long surmised: The Vatican’s goal in Rome/SSPX dialogue is to convert traditional Catholics to Conciliar thinking.

We repeat again Archbishop Di Noia’s key phrase: “This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”
 To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
 
 Article take from http://angelqueen.org/2013/01/21/john-vennari-on-abp-di-noias-goal-for-the-sspx/

The OP article is dated 2013/01/21/john-vennari-on-abp-di-noias-goal-for-the-sspx/. 
.
That was 3 years before Vennari died and over two years before Fr. Gruner passed away.
.
It's interesting we have so much better perspective now after the facts. Looking back, the explanations they avoided during their own lifetimes could have changed things if they had given them, and now, it's almost impossible for us to know why they didn't provide them.
.
Of course, we can speculate!
.

I'd say most likely

John's thesis, discussed in the article below, was confirmed to me by Bishop Fellay when I met him in February 2006 in Denver, Colorado. This was less than a year after Josef Ratzinger/Benedict XVI claimed the papacy in April of 2005. When I inquired into the details of the conversation that the bishop had with Benedict, Bishop Fellay mentioned that, in the course of his conversation with Benedict, Benedict stated that, "Well, of course, when you come in, you will have to teach the new thinkers in your seminaries [i.e., the New Theologians]." 
____________________________________________________________________

Mr.G says:  "So Bishop Fellay knew this was the goal back in 2006 yet he still tried to make a deal with them! So how can anyone blame the Resistance for pointing out what Bishop Fellay admits to." ----------------------------

.
It's fairly obvious that +Fellay knew all about this "goal" in 1994 when he was elected Superior General of the SSPX. He had already been busy organizing and supporting GREC at the time, facts which came to light later on, since he was not about to make any of that news for public consumption. The SSPX even today continues to suppress the factual history of GREC and +Fellay's involvement with it.
.
2006 was 12 years after 1994.
.

Okay, Mr. G,
You opened the can... and now the worms are crawling out.

A few observations and comments on Mr. Vennari's article:

3. Only after both Father Gruner and John Vennari died, did we figure out that the real Editor & Chief of CFN was Father Gruner!

  So John Vennari was just a front man.  Why did the "Fatima priest" hide this fact?

.
It seems to me that Fr. Gruner may have preferred that the Fatima Center and CFN would not have an openly cooperative appearance so as not to seem to be under the control of one person. By having two ostensibly separate organizations, the two entities could operate without conflicting with each other, having a physically different appearance (the stapled 8-1/2 x 11 soy-ink-on-semi-glossy Crusader format does not resemble the loose-leaf 22 x 17 newsprint CFN format), projecting the illusion that there are multiple groups of publishers (at least two, anyway) that are putting out the same message -- a quasi-media reality, so to speak.
.
I had a personal experience some years ago not unrelated to this. I found that going around talking to Catholics about Fatima and the Third Secret, that they often had mistaken understanding of one thing or another, and when I would give them the accurate history, with references, they were impressed. That is, they listened to what I had to say, UP TO THE POINT where I would mention the name, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. At that moment, they all too often would recoil, and vehemently accuse Fr. Gruner of being "suspended" or "vagus" or "disobedient" and therefore he was not believable, and by extension, I was not believable either. In reaction to this curious phenomenon delivered by people who did not know each other, I tried an experiment. I would go out talking to people just as before, but this time, I would studiously avoid the name of Fr. Gruner, and, when they would ask me, "Are you a follower of Fr. Gruner?" I would reply, "Who is this Fr. Gruner you're talking about?" The results were amazing. They would suddenly drop their opposition to what I had to say. They would regard me as more credible. They paid closer attention to the Fatima Message I had to tell them. Or, sometimes, they would appear shell-shocked and confused and perhaps even walk away scratching their head.
.
This was very interesting to me, and I told other Fatima promoters that I knew about this experience I had had, and they asked me if I thought that Fr. Gruner would approve of my technique, whereupon I told them that I had absolutely no qualms about it, and without even asking him I knew that he would welcome this story as "good news." Eventually, I had the privilege of meeting him and I told him about this experience I had had, and I was fascinated by his response. It was in the presence of several other West Coast close friends of his, whose names I could mention, but that would conflict with my described technique, now, wouldn't it? He smiled, looked around the table at the others, who were looking at him, and quietly muttered that that's okay, because it is the Fatima Message that is key, it is the thing that is important, that he was not looking for the personal spotlight or recognition, and whatever we could do to further the fame of Our Lady, is all that mattered -- whatever works, do it!
.
So, if it worked for me on this small scale, and Fr. Gruner appreciated it and gave his "seal of approval," then why would we think it would be any different for the Fatima Crusader and/or the CFN? 
.
Consequently, it seems to me that anyone trying to sleuth out a boogy-man in the closet by searching for the puppet-master behind the scenes who works the strings incognito, is chasing a foolish chimera, a waste of time, trouble and effort.
.

Not quite sure what the hub-bub is about CFN being an arm of the Fatima Crusader?

Br. John, as he was called at MHFM, had an EXTENSIVE knowledge of printing, type setting, and printing presses because much of the monasteries income was generated by the sale of books they printed and their monthly newsletter called "Crying in the Wilderness ".  

Fr. Grunner had established a relationship with MHFM for many years before Br. John left.  He often gave retreats and Fatima Crusades open to the public.  

By the early 90's Br. Joseph Natalie started to speak of mystical experiences he claimed to have.  One was that a great flood/chastisement would wipe out the monastery in central New Jersey and that they should relocate to central New York.

Although Br. Joseph was the superior, John had been the principal laborer and revenue generator for the monastery.  He worked long and hard to build a real brick and mortar church to replace the musty smelling, octagon shaped, timber  framed structure they used as a chapel.

Once "Ricky" Diamond showed up and talk of mystical revelations and relocating  excellerated, Br. John began to question why all of this hard work would suddenly be brought to naught.  I mean, after all, the new Church and monastery were quite impressive and the fruits of much, much, hard work.  To throw it all away on a "dream" of an infirm monk seemed a bit crazy.

After many discussions with the SSPX Br. John felt quite confident that since he never took final vows that he would be safe to leave MHFM.

My understanding at the time was that he needed a place to go.  Because of his vast knowledge of printing and publishing he approached Fr Grunner with the idea of CFN.  They both agreed to the terms and thus CFN was established.

It was NEVER a secret that CFN fell under the umbrella of the Fatima Crusader.