Dr. Peter Chojnowski: ‘By late 2014, Fr. Gruner had come to believe Francis is an Antipope, Benedict XVI the true Pope’
[UPDATE 09-AUG-2017 20:36 UTC: Dr. Chojnowski posts more evidence on his blog]
[UPDATE 08-AUG-2017 19:02 UTC: Verrecchio publishes Rare Video of “Fr.” Gruner on Benedict XVI’s Resignation]
[UPDATE 08-AUG-2017 13:31 UTC: “Fr.” Paul Kramer corroborates Chojnowski claim]
This is sure to shake things up a bit among the friends and followers of the late “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner (1942-2015), long-time director of the Fatima Center in Fort Eerie, Canada: According to Dr. Peter Chojnowski, the “Fatima priest” Nicholas Gruner towards the end of his life rejected Francis’ claim to the Papacy and embraced the idea that Benedict XVI was still the true Pope — a position we have labeled from the beginning as “Resignationism”.
Dr. Chojnowski holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Fordham University. An SSPX adherent, he is a popular speaker at various semi-traditionalist conferences. He recently started a blog called RadTrad Thomist.
Today, August 7, he published a post entitled, “What Fr. Gruner Actually Thought and Wanted”. It contains, among other things, this startling revelation:
Fr. Gruner came to believe that Francis I was not a true pope, but that Josef Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had retained the office. So it would have to be Benedict that would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and not Francis. John Vennari told me this on two occasions in private after the death of Fr. Gruner. At the time I had not know [sic] that this was the case and was surprised. John also said that Father was making statements in this regard during his speeches at his conferences at least by late 2014. John was not pleased by this turn of events at all, not at all.
(Peter Chojnowski, “What Fr. Gruner Actually Thought and Wanted”, RadTrad Thomist, Aug. 7, 2017)
This revelation won’t be received happily by a number of people, especially John Salza and Robert Siscoe, who have worked so hard to keep people from concluding that Francis isn’t the Vicar of Christ, and now it seems that their own beloved “Fatima Priest” himself could not deny the evidence in this regard. On the other hand, this puts “Fr.” Gruner squarely with his long-time associate, “Fr.” Paul Kramer, who had concluded the same about Francis and Benedict approximately a year earlier (see our post here).
UPDATE 08-AUG-2017: Louie Verrecchio, editor of the AKA Catholic blog, has just released some rare video footage of Mr. Gruner talking about Benedict XVI’s resignation, in which he insinuates that he believes it was invalid:
It is truly unfortunate that those who have come to the certain knowledge that Jorge Bergoglio cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church, nevertheless fall for the ruse that Benedict XVI is — “still” — the Pope, for while it is evident that Francis is not a Catholic (see here), so it is equally certain that Benedict XVI is not a Catholic (see here).
Of course, it is a lot more satisfying emotionally to believe that there is a Pope in the Vatican — it’s just not the big guy everyone is looking at but the little old man in the background — than to say the last true Pope was Pius XII and we’re not sure what happened after that. However, emotion cannot be the standard here. In the face of the clear evidence, we must follow where it leads.
The difference between Francis and Benedict XVI is merely one of degree, not of kind. The former flaunts his apostasy openly, whereas the latter knows how to hide it behind a veneer of orthodoxy, eloquence, and piety. Both of them, however, propose the same anti-Catholic religion — one goes a bit further faster, the other is not quite as bold and doesn’t mind taking it more slowly.
We have mentioned this a number of times before, but it bears repeating: Those who seek refuge in Benedict in order to escape Francis’ open apostasy will be sorely disappointed. In a post from over a year ago, we noted:
Those who, in the event of a schism in which Benedict XVI plays Francis’ “conservative” counterpart, flock to the “Pope Emeritus”, would be under the serious but emotionally satisfying illusion of having escaped the Modernist deception, which they would see only in Francis’ sect, whereas the truth is, of course, that it began long before Francis, namely, in 1958 with the election of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as the first false pope (“John XXIII”).
…Ratzinger adherents would with great satisfaction believe themselves to have eluded the false Modernist Church, when the truth is that they would only have adjusted rooming arrangements within the the same deadly anti-Catholic sect. The Ratzinger sect and the Bergoglio sect would be but two wings of the same bird.
(“Amoris Laetitia and the Coming Schism: Retrospect & Prospect”, Novus Ordo Wire, May 2, 2016)
We hope and pray that those who have come to the conclusion that Francis cannot be the Pope on account of his heresies, will soon conclude the same about Benedict XVI and the other fake popes.
Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski
On another but related note: A few days ago, the semi-trad blogger Louie Verrecchio posted an article critical of a curious phenomenon that has appeared as of late: a mixing of the conservative Novus Ordo position (think: The Wanderer, EWTN, Life Site) with the “traditionalist” position (think: The Remnant, SSPX, Fatima Center). This new blend, which he calls “conservative-traditionalism”, has recently become popular because of both the conservatives and the semi-trads finding common cause in opposing Francis’ über-liberal agenda, especially his egregious attempts to indemnify people for the sin of adultery (those few that didn’t manage to get an annulment, that is).
One of the effects of this conservative-traditionalist “ecumenism” has been the celebrating of staunch promoters of Vatican II and the pre-Francis Novus Ordo Magisterium as de facto “traditionalist” heroes, such as “Cardinals” Raymond Burke, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, and Robert Sarah — simply for condemning adultery and opposing the idea that unrepentant public adulterers should be allowed to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments. As prime offenders with regard to a “discernible ‘softening’ that is taking place in certain traditional circles”, Verrecchio mentions Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara, both of Remnant fame.
Thus we note that Francis is truly deserving of the nickname we gave him four years ago, “Chaos Frank.” No one causes greater havoc faster and with more lasting consequences than this charlatan. He may just manage to divide the semi-traditionalist camp into Francis adherents and Benedict adherents, in fulfillment of his own reported prediction: “I may go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church”.