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”.
Image sources: fatima.org / unknown
Licenses: fair use / fair use
I guess Bergoglio might love to be remembered as one who “split the Catholic Church.” Unfortunately for Bergoglio, he is fifty odd years too late. That ‘honour’ goes to Roncalli. But then again, the Catholic Church never ‘split’. It’s the conciliar church that split. It is a church that ‘scattereth’. As for everyone in it, communing with the scatterers, how can they possibly be said to be keeping their vocation as Catholics?
Yeah, but he’s a kinder, gentler heretic (to paraphrase the promise of G H W Bush, who spoke of his vision of theUS, before he tricked Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait by means of the US ambassador April Glaspie).
Francis has a never-ending list of heresies, errors, and outrageous statements. Even though most semi-trads loathe him and ignore him (while calling him pope), the vast majority of Novus Ordos approve of him. In January 2017, the Pew Research Center’s study concluded that 87% (!) of Novus Ordos “express a favorable view” of Francis.
If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be hilarious.
That’s the problem right there. Benedict was less popular than either Francis or JP2… because he was seen as too conservative.
Well, people get the rulers they deserve…
When he was only the prefect of the “doctrine of faith,” Ratzinger, the champion of the orthodoxy of fools, declared:
It is to the Church today that we must remain faithful, not to yesterday or to tomorrow; And today the Church is the documents of Vatican II in its authenticity.” Rapporto sulla Fede, p.32.
We must be careful not to allow emotion, human respect, and personal sympathy get in the way of this battle. Please look at this warning by Fr. Frederick Faber given in 1861:
“We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”
What does detraction have to do with this?
What does detraction have to do with this? If “Fr.” Gruner announces at a public event that he believes Benedict XVI never resigned validly, why would it be detraction to point that out?
Why point it out at all if Father Gruner (apparently) took some pains to keep his opinion largely private?
What purpose is served by releasing Father Gruner’s opinion as though it carried some weight with this blog that seems so often constrained to identify priests as ‘Mr.’ and ‘Fr.’?
I will not impugn your motives and, as we know, there can be compelling moral reasons for revealing a hidden truth or fault of an individual even if it creates a stir. I simply wonder what the compelling reason was for this disclosure and what is achieved by it.
Having said all that, I confess I fully agree with what Father Gruner’s conclusions and sentiments are purported to be.
OK, I’m happy to address the points you bring up.
First, the matter was revealed by Dr. Peter Chojnowski. He posted it on the internet. At that point it’s public, accessible to the entire world.
Second, Dr. Chojnowski did not reveal this as though it were a fault on Rev. Gruner’s part. He simply revealed what Gruner himself had announced in public conferences — not a personal sin, mind you, but a personal belief about who is and isn’t the Pope.
Third, Dr. Chojnowski stated on his blog what the reasons for his disclosure were. He didn’t do it “just for fun”, so to speak, but he thought it was necessary to disclose this now.
Fourth, our web site is called “Novus Ordo Watch”. That’s what we do: We watch the various developments in the Vatican II Church at large and report on them. Fifth, this is significant inasmuch as it shows the division in the Vatican II Church about who the Pope is and that different high-profile individuals differ in their views on this.
Thank you for graciously replying to me and the distinctions drawn. I suppose your web site, which I visit daily and often find instructive, strives to balance these two passages from Holy Scripture;
“John answered him, saying: ‘Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: ‘Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me.’ Mark 9:38
“But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed
about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment,
but said, ‘The Lord rebuke thee’.” Jude 1:9
I have no idea what you mean here. If you have a point of criticism or rebuke, that’s fine, but please state it openly. I do not want to have to read between the lines. Thank you.
Neither criticism or rebuke. There are those who are our fellows in Christ whether we recognize it or not.
Re: Mark quote. According to Cornelius A Lapide, doing an obvious good in the name of Christ, is no scandal. But that does not mean they are followers of Christ. Therefore, ‘fellows’ is misplaced.
Thank you, Sonia. I perhaps ought have continued with the cite from Mark where at Mark 9:41 Jesus says:
“For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.”
Mark 9:40. A good work has its reward…one good turn deserves another. ‘Reward’ is not expounded upon.
But verse 41, which speaks of scandals and milestones leaves no doubt about ‘reward’.
As to the topic of folks who consider themselves wholly Catholic, yet recoil from or dissimulate or deny Catholic truths, it’s a shame.
I’m at a loss to understand the point of quoting Mark 9:41 here.
It’s true that those who assist the Church or her members in any genuine manner will not lose their reward. But alas, for the vast majority of such people, that will only mean a significant reduction in the pains they will suffer in Hell.
“And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:42-43
Thus spoke Our Lord to the brigand on the Cross.
And that scriptural passage proves what exactly?
– that all good deeds done on behalf of Christ and His Church are rewarded (positively) in Heaven and not (negatively) in Hell?!
– that anyone who does a single act of kindness on behalf of God’s Church will go to Heaven?!
– that one single good deed of this nature negates the many bad deeds deserving punishment in Hell?!
If not, what was the point of quoting it?
St Dismas repented fully of his sins and accepted his death on the cross in reparation for them. One should not minimize his holiness to make facile points.
May God grant you peace and eternal life, Timotheos.
“Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? There were 12 Apostles – Jesus chose a Devil for one. Judas betrayed Christ but he still held his office as a priest and bishop. Jesus did not deny the leadership of the Pharisees and Caiaphas. The “official” leaders still held their offices. Christ did not remove them. He permitted them to remain so to fulfill prophecy. “He was not accepted by His own.” It’s no different today. Christ’s Doctrine and True Church teaching is NOT accepted by so many leaders. For those with eyes to see …
We have to be careful not to cobble together our own theology. Instead, it is important to look at what the Church teaches about these things. To speak of Judas retaining his office of bishop is questionable for several reasons.
First, because although Our Lord ordained him a bishop at the Last Supper, whether he actually received the office then (as opposed to merely the sacrament) is not certain, I would say. St. Peter, for example, did not actually receive his office of the Papacy until after the Resurrection, as the First Vatican Council teaches.
Second, it is not based on any evidence. Judas committed suicide shortly after betraying our Lord. Whether he retained the putative office or not, we are not told.
Third, St. Jerome teaches that the high priest Caiaphas lost his office immediately upon his public and official rejection of the true Messias: “And by this rending [of] his garments, [Caiaphas] shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him” (St. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 26:65; quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas, ed., Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels collected out of the Works of the Fathers Vol. I, Part III [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1842], p. 926.).
Thank you. I agree that they did lose their spiritual power, but not their temporal office. It is no different today. We know today that there are bishops who may hold the title of bishop, but they have rejected Christ’s teachings. God has not removed these men. He could, but He is permitting this evil for a greater good. He is purifying His Church. Jesus did not remove Caiaphas from his office. Of course, Caiaphas lost his spiritual power, but he had an earthly office and power to campaign for Christ’s death. Jesus said: “but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
May I ask what your source is for making these confident claims? I have a feeling you simply make assertions that seem right to you but you really have nothing to back them up with. According to Catholic teaching and canon law, a man who publicly defects from the Faith loses his office. (I have no idea what you mean by “spiritual power”, but if by that you mean ordination, then that is certainly *not* lost.) And as regards the example from the Old Covenant I cited, Caiaphas removed himself from his office by his rejection of Christ.
If you’d like to dispute any of this, you can do so, but please start naming some sources and do not simply make assertions. God bless you.