"Beyond Ridiculous." In 2014 Interview Fr. Gruner Uses 2nd and 3rd Hand Information about what "Sister Lucy" said or did not say about the Consecration of Russia to Ignore the Elephant in the Room (The Apparent Physical Differences Between Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II) and the Baby Elephant (The Primary Consequence of the Substitution was to Use the Persona of Sister Lucy to Validate the Modernist Revolution). Why, with all of his funds, did he not do what Sister Lucy Truth is doing now?


  1. Too many people "follow" people like Fr Gruner, who, whilst they may have good intentions, lead others into error. Wasn't he ordained in the new doubtful ordination rite and was the man who ordained him a bishop or one of the new "installed" people who are not consecrated as bishops.

    1. Many traditional CATHOLICS still follow and admire deceased Father Feeney who taught grave errors regarding the much settled doctrine regarding the three types of Baptism with his error that water Baptism is the only Baptism. As far as judgement regarding all those priests who are ordained by the new doubtful ordination rite, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he was the decision maker following careful scrutiny as to whether or not a priest should be conditionally reordained when his responsibility was called upon to do so. Are priests and laity even able to make these decisions? Today, we can only make our opinions and questions guide us, but sometime from now when the Consecration of Russia is obediently done and our Blessed Mother Mary's Triumph is the promised reality, our Church will again be Catholic and Blessed with trustworthy and faithful leaders.

      I wonder if not most priests would be in the need to be reordained category today. However, most does not mean all, and the authority to determine this is that of a Bishop or higher ranking person in authority. Today many Bishops are members of the counterfeit conciliar church and are not only untrustworthy but also unfit in that they are often lacking in even basic Catholicism.

    2. It is Pope Pius XII who was the last "decision maker" appointed by the Church on matters of sacramental validity. He wrote Sacramentum Ordinis which explained that if a new sacramental form is created for episcopal consecrations that it must convey the power of Orders and the power of the Holy Ghost, otherwise it is invalid. The new form does not do this. Archbishop Lefebvre does not have any special powers to "decide" on the sacraments. He has to obey the pope like every other Catholic does. But I hear it is no longer Abp Lefebvre who makes these decisions in "the Society". It is Pierre Marie of Avrille from the well known "globalist" family. Go and educate yourself as to what is going on. And he made clear his reasons - if the new sacramental form was not valid it would create problems for them! Problems for their deal with someone who is supposed to be the bishop of Rome but is not a bishop. What a farce. If Abp Lefebvre proclaimed himself to be decision maker above the pope then he is no different to Luther. A saint would not do that. There were many other humble and truly Catholic bishops preserving the faith and the Latin Mass at that time, but the SSPX won't tell you about any of them except to lie about them, blacken their name with "stories" and false insinuations.

    3. There is no way Archbishop Lefebvre could be the "decision maker" in such matters. He was a retired bishop, had no jurisdiction, his pious union (the SSPX) was suppressed by what he regarded to be the authority in the Church, and he was under a suspension "a divinis" from the same authority, the man he called "Most Holy Father", the head of what you call the "counterfeit conciliar church". That he could pick and choose which novus ordo priest to conditionally ordain, and which not to, is, at best, fraught with danger. The fact that the SSPX has many invalidly ordained "priests" in its midst, or is working with them, is thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre. SSPXers should be praying "O Lord grant us valid priests".

  2. and why couldn't they at least give it some credence as a possibility? Come on!

    1. In this evil age in which we live, we most definitely must discern as the salvation of our souls depends upon it; however, we have the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC
      Church of all time to lead and guide us. THANKS, PRAISE, HONOR and GLORY TO GOD
      and our Blessed MOTHER MARY, we are left with everything we need to save our souls, and also we can help those others in our lives who are placed on our path by God's design and plan. GOD HAS NOT AND WILL NOT ABANDON US.
      Here are a few practical guides that I stick to:

      1. When Father Skippy drives down the aisle on a motorcycle wearing a clown costume,
      I do not waste any more time, I simply run out the door as fast as I can.
      2. When Father Skippy has miss or mrs. extraordinary minister in a witch costume at halloween time while giving out possibly a wafer???, one may need to escape the scene and never ever go back.
      3. When Father Skippy's homily/homilies discuss the latest episodes of dancing with the stars, I know that I (and everyone else) is in the wrong place, and I run.

      These are but a very few of the practical applications of discernment that we can all benefit from.


      In conclusion, the above has never failed me in necessary times of discernment in this evil age in which GOD has chosen for us to live and make our way to ETERNAL LIFE.

    2. God help us. Can we not stand our ground? When Fr. Skippy ... I run.
      I never run, I stand up and walk our quite publicly. I consider it a grace that Fr. Skippy gets all frazzled and nervous when he sees me. What you call discernment I consider a lack of fortitude.

  3. "With all of his funds"? Are you kidding? Father Gruner was always struggling with shortage of funds.

    Father Gruner was a very busy man. He put Fatima on the map, laying a broad foundation which supports what you are able to do further today. So don't be a smart-alec, and show some gratitude.

    No one man can do everything, and get everything right-- including you. As far as this video is concerned, Fr Gruner does not say that a fake Sister Lucy is impossible in any context; he merely pointed out some problems that need to be addressed. It was John Vennari who erred by saying that some of the forensic evidence was "shallow"-- but you didn't mention him by name, did you?

    You say that Fr Gruner uses "2nd and 3rd hand information", seeming to imply that we should ignore what 'Sr Lucy' said in the 1980s-- that the Consecration of Russia had not been done in 1982 and 1984. You should consider:

    1. You yourself use 2nd hand information. You do not analyze the 'Sr Lucy' photographs and handwriting yourself, do you?

    2. You have not proven that the 1983 Papal Nuncio (who interviewed 'Sr Lucy' for 2 hours on 19 March 1983, and was told that the Consecration of Russia had not been done); that Fr Coelho (who was then present, and took record of that interview-- a record that forced Haffert's Blue Army to reverse its previous false 'consecration done' claim); that Sol De Fatima (the Spanish Blue Army magazine which published in 1985 the statement of 'Sr Lucy' that the 1984 consecration was not as requested by Our Lady because Russia was not named and all Catholic bishops did not participate); and that Fr Umberto Pasquale (who personally knew the real Sr Lucy since 1939, who received 157 letters from the real Sr Lucy from then to 1982, and who published in L'Osservatore Romano her statement that Our Lady of Fatima never asked for the consecration of the world, but only "Russia, Russia") are all unreliable witnesses. Their version is true, and wholly consistent with the full traditional Fatima message as received from the real Sr Lucy.

    3. You are correct, and to your credit have proven, that there was a fake 'Sr Lucy'. But if you claim that the real Sr Lucy was no longer present in the 1980s, leaving only the fake 'Sr Lucy' here in that period, then how do you explain these historical facts? Even including the Vatican, who would front a fake to make true statements which go against one's agenda? How does saying "the Consecration of Russia has not been done" jibe with "the primary consequence of the substitution was to use the persona of Sister Lucy to validate the modernist revolution"? That cognitive dissonance is what is really "beyond ridiculous".

    4. The false 'Sr Lucy', the fake persona fronted by dark powers in the Vatican, would not make true statements about non-consecration (which, however, in a legal context would be 'admission against interest'). Those powers want us to think that the Consecration of Russia has already been done, that the modernist future is rosy, and that we can/should forget about Fatima (as Bergoglio told Putin visiting the Vatican in 2013: "we will not discuss Fatima"). It appears that they belatedly exploited their opportunities in 1989 when the fake letters &c. emerged making consecration claims more suited to their infernal agenda.

    You have done good and welcome work which is convincing. That, however, does not mean that you know everything. Fr Gruner, at least-- unlike yourself, was wise early on to the Bergoglian "so-called papacy". You need to think about the 3rd Secret of Fatima more. And I would suggest, when you express your opinions, that you tone down the unseemly sarcasm.

    1. No, it's not true to say Fr. Gruner "was wise early on to the Bergoglian 'so-called papacy'". Nothing could be further from the truth.

      In one of Fr. Gruner's news letters: "Father's Letter of September 2013, re: The Consecration of October 13, 2013", he stated: "WE HAVE IN POPE FRANCIS THE HOLY FATHER WE HAVE WAITED AND PRAYED FOR!" (The original was in all caps.)

      In the same bulletin, Fr. Gruner also claimed the Fatima Center was instrumental in the election of Bergoglio: "And we know the Pope (Francis) loves Our Lady! In a way, we made sure of it! When we went to Rome before the papal conclave, we lobbied all the Cardinals, stressing how important it was that we have a Marian Pope who would do as Our Lady of Fatima asked!"

      Fr. Gruner continued: "The Cardinals elected Pope Francis...We had reason then to believe that our prayers had been answered!"

      Good for Dr. Chojnowski for having the courage to admit the truth. Fr. Gruner was instrumental in spreading confusion regarding Fatima and Sister Lucy. If Dr. Chojnowski were to draw a veil over this fact, he would certainly lose some credibility.

      Keep up the good work, Dr. Chojnowski.

    2. Father Gruner said these things in 2013, as nearly everyone else, since it was too early to think otherwise.
      But he very soon changed his mind (well before his death in early 2015), as Fr Kramer recounts, and was soon publicly using phrases such as "the so-called papacy" of Francis.
      I think that qualifies as "early on".

  4. IMHO, Father Gruner was deceived somehow. He was so passionately in love with the truth that there is now way he ignored this. He was so busy and fought so many battles, maybe this one was just one too many. Our Lady must have wanted this information to come when it did and by Mr. Chojnowski for reasons known to her. She is watching over this whole battle. We all really need to say an extra rosary on December 8th for a holy pope. No president is going to rid us of this horror! (And yes there are traditionalists who shockingly believe this)

  5. Funny, but it was my email they were answering in this video, and I couldn't believe how much John Vennari changed my wording when "reading" the email. The reason I know it was my email they were answering was that this issue hadn't come up on their show before, and I wrote the email the week before they shot this video. So the possibility that someone else had this issue in mind and emailed them about it back then is pretty small. Mr. Vennari manipulated my question to better fit his purposes, and Fr. Gruner answered it in a way that wouldn't threaten his apostolate. Both of them had a vested in the Fatima issue, so to speak, and I think that's why they didn't want to look into it further. I also think that's why you probably won't get support from any of the big names in traditional Catholic media. I think that's sad. Truth is truth, and isn't truth what the traditional Catholic media is all about?

  6. And PS--thank you, Dr. Chojnowski, for investing time, energy, and money into doing all of this. It needed to be done and I'm so grateful that you stepped up to the plate. May God reward your efforts.

  7. Fr. Gruner apparently had an obsessional problem regarding Fatima. That's probably why he over-looked the fact that Sister Lucy and the impostor did not look alike at all.

    A fake Sister Lucy would not fit in with Fr. Gruner's own rigid interpretations dealing with Fatima. Therefore, the idea had to be abolished. What he wanted was a live, vocal Sister Lucy who would always be there, confirming (over and over again) Fr. Gruner's position that the Consecration still needed to be done. The only time the good priest did not consider the fake to be the real McCoy was whenever she contradicted his position.

    Fr. Gruner had a ideas about the type of Utopian peace that the world could potentially have if only the "pope" would consecrate "Russia" by name and would "order" all the bishops to do the same. He spent much of his life obsessing about the Fatima message to the point where the salvation of souls, which should've been the main objective, was totally neglected:

    There's a huge dichotomy between telling people that they must be spotless and sinless, go to confession, always wear the brown scapular and pray the rosary every day, etc; but then to turn around and tell them that God would rather accept the Consecration from a heretic than from a real pope, like Pius XII. All the heretic would have to do was say the word "Russia" and order all the bishops to do the same. That's what mattered to Fr. Gruner.

    Yes, it's beyond ridiculous.

  8. In charity, one explanation could be that it would have changed the whole emphasis from the "Message of Fatima" (fasting, prayer, penance etc) to the real world problem of exposing the crimes committed to keep the truth suppressed. The intrigue, mystery, criminal behavior etc...then naturally leads down the road to the validity/legitimacy of the Conciliar Popes, Vatican 2 etc....all of which would answer the question...."Why hasn't the real 3rd secret been revealed?" Answer: It would expose/confirm the apostasy and takeover of the Church at Vatican 2....as previously prophesied. Instead the imposter confirms the V2 revolution and invents "diabolical disorientation" as the distraction from the ongoing crimes and coverup.
    Dr C, it is clear that your fantastic work has completely stunned into silence/denial the professional "Fatima" adherents. Clearly, STL/SLI is the equivalent of...."The King has no clothes on". We should all pray that everyone revisit Fr Gruner's..."Crucial Truths to Save Your Soul"....and take his advice to heart...and then take ACTION....ie...All the professionals and interested parties Join forces and resources under the banner of "TRUTH". Then rededicate ourselves to TRUTH and move forward in battle under the mantel and protection of Our Lady of Fatima.
    Dr C, the world owes you et al a great "Thank You" for revealing the Truth.
    May God Bless You and His Mother Protect You always.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?

Rev. Sam Osborne, Mysteries of the Mass, Gnosticon 4, Sept. 18th 2021. An Explanation of the Gnostic Rite of "Mass" that Leads Us to Wonder Why this Intentional Mass of the Albigensian, Manichean, and Gnostic Heretics is Almost Identical to the New Mass of the Masonic Paul VI.