Regarding this link: An ardent supporter says he is not suspended. The Vatican says he is. Hmmm, I think Church authority wins on this one.

Within months of being ordained, Fr. Gruner set himself up from the get go to defy and side-step his superiors. The games that were played are mind boggling. Yes, he had permission to reside outside his place of incardination but on the condition he was accepted for incardination elsewhere. Not only is there no evidence of him attempting to be incardinated, within weeks of arriving in Ottawa he took charge of an apostolate without a mandate (or even the courtesy of approaching the local bishop), and put himself forward as director of the Fatima pilgrim statue. After much dissention between himself and his superiors, the local bishop finally offered him incardination with the lawful understanding that he submit himself to the authority of the bishop, accept a post within the diocese, and give up his private work. Fr. Gruner point blank refused. As a consequence he was recalled back to his place of incardination back in Italy to which he also point blank refused - claiming that he had permission to be in Canada; the underlying condition attached to that "permission" conveniently ignored.

Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, then wrote to warn him that failure to return would result in his suspension a divinis. When he still refused, the new Bishop of Avellino, Italy (1994) issued a decree declaring Gruner a vagus ("wandering") priest. This was followed (1996) by a suspension of his priestly functions. He appealed the suspension, but was unsuccessful: "The Congregation for the Clergy, upon the mandate from a higher authority, wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under an 'a divinis' suspension, which has been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature."

In short, Fr. Nicholas Gruner is suspended a divinis. According to canon 1333 §1, "Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits: 1° all or some of the acts of the power of order; 2° all or some of the acts of the power of governance; [and] 3° the exercise of all or some of the rights or functions attaching to an office." Regardless of who initially imposed or declared the suspension against Fr. Gruner, the Apostolic Signatura upheld this penal sanction.

If you study the long history of Fr. Gruner, you can clearly see the Fatima was used by him as an excuse to rebel and do his own thing. From the moment he was ordained, he launched himself as a lone-ranger whose personal apostolate morphed into an consistent and unrelenting attack on Rome and all the other well established Fatima apostolates such as The Blue Army.

Patricia McKeever/ Sean Johnson/ Martin Blackshaw: Having something so shameful, so degrading happen to you - a child - by an adult everyone trusts - is psychologically and emotionally crippling. How to say it? How to admit it? How to cope with the inner turmoil and pain? So you internalize it. And then it begins to eat at you. Your try harder to suppress it; to block it out. Years go by. Finally, when there is enough distance between you and the thing that hurt you, when that crippling pain no longer has such a hold on you, when you are an adult on equal terms with your abuser, then, and only then, can you face the nightmare and speak of it.

Credo: Thank you. I found the following - from Cardinal Bertone's letter - highly interesting:
Sister Lucia had already given an indication for interpreting the third part of the "secret" in a letter to the Holy Father, dated 12 May 1982:

"The third part of the secret refers to Our Lady's words: ‘If not [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated' (13-VII-1917).

Well that's certainly an apt description of the Third Secret's vision. Thanks for getting us back on topic!

Ann Barnhardt claims that Pope Benedict's resignation was invalid due to, primarily, "substantial error" and secondary, "out of fear" and therefore that makes Jorge Bergolio's election invalid; that is the crux of her argument. Now the latter is her private assumption so we can dismiss it. Let us look at "substantial error" (making a grave mistake): Well, Ann draws upon Pope Benedict's last Papal audience where he explaining how he sees his role after his resignation from the Seat of Peter: "I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter." Given Pope Benedict's official resignation (see below) it clear that this is merely a manner of speaking - as he states himself. It simply means that by his prayers he will remain "in spirit" within the enclosure of Saint Peter. Nothing more. He does not literally mean that he will resign "actively" as Pope yet remain "passively" as Pope - thereby allegedly committing a "substantial error". There is no "substantial error" involved here. Ann is reading into things that are not there. She is totally missing the meaning intended. - looking at a tree instead of the wood.

Pope Benedict XVI's official resignation letter, dated 11th February, 2013:

The Latin: "Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die undevicesima Aprilis bismillesimo quinto commissum renuntiare ita ut a die vicesima octava februarii bismillesimo tredecesimo, hora vicesima, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.

Translation: “Therefore, well aware of the seriousness of this action, in full liberty I declare that I resign the ministry of the bishop of Rome, of the Successor of St. Peter, entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals on the 19th day of April, 2005, with the result that, from the twenty-eighth day of February 2013 [see below], at the twentieth hour, the see of Rome, the See of St. Peter, will be vacant; and I declare that a Conclave to select a new highest pontiff needs to be convoked by those to whom the duty belongs.”

The Latin word 'ministerio' (Ministry) means both "the office or functions of a ministeris"; there is no distinction in Latin as they may be in English.

Appreciate your honesty. Believe me I'm no fan of this Pope. Far, far from it. I'm just against lay people trying to make a dogma of Sede-vacantism. As horrific as he is, this Pope is the center-point for the Catholic world; its the glue that holds us together creating a bastion against the snarling wolves closing in. Without it, everybody becomes their own pope and that's not only down right Protestant, but it leaves the Church deserted and our families laid bare to a growing M uslim threat. Anyway, I have a nice hot cup of tea all ready so I'll have a listen to Ms. Calamity Jane of the trad cat world and let you know what I think :)

I'll take a look at the Benedict thesis on Ann's site - but I wash my hands of Fr. Kramer's thoughts on the matter. Too much of a weather-cock - swings this way and that - side-steps direct questions with insulting adjectives - readily embraces fantastical claims such as a 'fake Lucia', and backs everyone and anyone who attacks the Pope. Experience has taught me that such deliberate agitation is a red flag.

spinmeister: Unless you would like to credit me with bilocation, I'm sitting here in little old Ireland. Mind you, I would love to visit V.R.S' part of the world but haven't got there yet! I guess its simply a case of 'great minds think alike' :D

Now down to business: Spinmeister you wrote: "You simply can not help but revert to your default position, "no one has the authority to depose the Pope."

You certainly are the king of misquoting. Neither of us said "no-one". We said "no subordinate has the authority to dispose a Pope." And the logical reason for that - apart from the danger of 1,400,000,000 superpopes (V.R.S love that!!) - is to avoid a headless body; a headless Church. For in disposing a Pope, one must also have the power to elect a new one. This brings us to you. Seems to me you are acting as your own Magisterium. You insist over and over again that sede-vacantism is a "truth" and insult us when we do not accept your personal judgment. In other words, you are claiming binding authority as a layman; you are in fact claiming equivalent authority to a Pope or council. This is protestant, and is it revolutionary - power to the people! Moreover, I challenge you to present one binding doctrine - that harms our faith and directly contradicts previous binding doctrines - that the last number of Popes have introduced. If Pope Francis is a manifest heretic then please show us what dogma he has officially denied (to be a heretic one must embrace a formal heresy).

Credo: Ok, I checked out the link you sent. Sisco and Salza are pretty detailed so I skimmed a bit and came across a quote from Fr. Kramer. I have to say I do not like his tone. He is what my kids call theatrically disdainful which is tactic used to avoid addressing a legitimate concern. It is also highly uncharitable: He writes: “Now let’s consider the Salza/Siscoe doctrine, which has already been adequately refuted by another author [a Sedevacantist layman with no theological training], who, (unlike myself), has endured the somewhat penitential work of reading through the entire 700 page book. I have read enough excerpts to gain an adequate understanding of the errant Salza/Siscoe arguments [remember this statement]. One does not need to jump into a refuse bin and asphyxiate on the putrid fumes to recognize its contents – a couple of sniffs suffice for the olfactory apparatus to make its determination. Likewise, it is not necessary for one to read through an entire work to recognize by the stink of their errors...” (Facebook, August 5th). The book Fr. Kramer is referring to is "True or False Pope" by Sisco and Salza and is a defense of the Papacy against the novel error of 'Sede-vacantism'. Clearly Fr. Kramer does not like this book. And this would heavily imply that he holds - or at least held -to the Sede-vacantism position himself. Either way, there was no cause to respond the way he did.

Maria delos Angeles: I will peruse your link next.