Taking up for UnityPublishing / Fr. Gruner's legitimacy
#1
It seems that a fellow named “unknown” here on Fisheaters does not like Rick Salbot, the man who runs the website, unitypublishing.com.  However, I like that website!  And I like Rick Salbot!  Therefore, I am willing to serve as his advocate until he is proven in error on this matter. 

The following points from this link were posted on another thread.  http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitio...RUNER.html
“unknown” uses this page as evidence that Salbot is incompetent.  I say, we should therefore investigate the points made.  I’ve tried to make the points easy.

I have this in bullet points for easy dialogue.

In this article/webpage, Salbot argues that Father Gruner is a radical deceitful priest who harms Our Lady of Fatima. 

Please, feel free to dissect this and attack whatever points you see here.

Let’s begin.


----


Rick Salbot’s take on Fr. Gruner is the following:
-He portrays himself a persecuted victim of Roman bureaucracy.
-He pretends to his listeners that his case is still being reviewed by the Pope.

Salbot argues these things about Fr. Gruner’s history:

-refused to serve as a diocesan priest in Avellino in 1976
-left for Canada without the bishop’s approval
-Never asked the local bishop of St. Catherine’s diocese of Ontario for permission or faculties.  No evidence can be found that he ever approached any bishop.
-Gruner’s financial support comes from Mafia wives, who live away from their Mafia husbands in Canada. 

Salbot says that Fr. Gruner does not believe Russia was consecrated correctly:

-Gruner “made it the heart and soul of his magazine that Russia would be converted to the Catholic Faith in a miracle right after the consecration.”  Obviously, Russia didn’t instantly turn Catholic.
-Therefore, Gruner says Lucia was a prisoner of the Pope.  That she would lie for the Pope.

Further history of Fr. Gruner, according to Salbot:

-Bishop Gerardo Pierro, Fr. Gruner’s original bishop, ordered Fr. Gruner back to his diocese in 1989.  Fr. Gruner did not respond.
-Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy ordered him back.  Fr. Gruner refused.
-Cardinal Sanchez and Archbishop Sepe, on October 14, 1992, stated in L’Osservatore Romano that Gruner and his Apostolate were not approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
-1994 the new bishop of Avellino declared Fr. Gruner a vagus priest.
-Salbot argues that this is automatic excommunication, because Fr. Gruner has not settled anywhere with the permission of a bishop.  Salbot cites the 1st Council of the Church, Council of Nice and Canon XV.
-Fr. Gruner wrote to the Pope concerning the previous matter, but there has been no reply to his letter.  He uses this lack of a reply to argue that his case is still open.
-Salbot argues that “if Gruner was truly treated wrongly, as in the cases of Padre Pio or Father Marx, he still should have done that same as they did—obey.”

Fr. Gruner’s situation during the 1992 International Symposium at Fatima:

-The Bishop of Fatima invited many bishops to attend Mass on October 13th 1992 at Fatima.  But Fr. Gruner wanted a “competing” conference. 
-The local bishop of Fatima informed Gruner that there were not proper faculties in Fatima for Fr. Gruner’s plans. 
-Gruner invited hundreds of bishops and Archbishop sfrom all over the world to attend his conference at Fatima, and even paid all their travel expenses.
-The bishops of Gruner’s crusade were informed by the Apostolic Nunciature and the local bishop that the Conference had not been approved by the ecclesiastic authorities and was a counter position against an officially sanctioned Symposium. 
-Fr. Gruner refused to obey the bishop of Fatima, and tried to organize a Rosary March in the Cova without approval.  Security police ordered him to leave.  He refused.  They took him by force, but he kept resisting until he was scratched and bruised.

Concerning the dialogue between a translator (Carlos Evaristo) and Sister Lucy, Rick Salbot says this of Fr. Gruner:

-Cardinal Antony Padiyare was the highest Church prelate present at the Conference.  He would visit Sr. Lucy.  He had no translator, so he took a devoted follower of Gruner, Carlos Evaristo.
-Evaristo had worked side by side with Fr. Gruner in Canada as a travel consultant and was fluent in Portuguese and English.
-According to Carlos Evaristo’s translation, Sister Lucy affirmed that the consecration to Russia took place.  It was done. 
-Carlos Evaristo: “But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?”  Sister Lucy: “Our Lady never said that.  There are many misinterpretations around.  The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people from carrying out their faith.  People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert.  This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man in Russia [Gorbachev], unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion…”
-Sister Lucy, according to the translation provided by Rick Salbot, stated that she had never heard of him. 
-Sister Lucy, according to the translation provided by Rick Salbot, stated that the Consecration was done, and that there were many misinterpretations in Fr. Gruner’s magazine, including the fact that she did not write the alleged letters in typeprint.

Fr. Gruner’s attempt to meet with Sister Lucy, according to Rick Salbot:

-The Cardinal asked if Sr. Lucy would talk to Fr. Gruner.  She said she would, if sponsored by the Cardinal.
-the Mother Prioress objected.  She remembered when Father Gruner took a group of pilgrims to the convent and took photographs of the Sisters holding up one of his banners (which they could not read) and then published that the sisters agreed with him that the Consecration was not done." After she (the Mother Prioress) wrote to him to retract that statement.
-Sister Lucy agreed to meet him anyway at 10AM
-Fr. Gruner was late, and missed the appointment.
-Fr. Gruner, upon learning of his meeting with Sister Lucy, had called many other bishops and pilgrims and told them Sr. Lucy would see them all.
-Being late, Sr. Lucy was to move on with her schedule and see Corazon Aquino.  But Gruner protested loudly, and led all of his company through the cloister’s main door.
- Dr. Miguel Barata, personal Physician of Sister Lucia, Monsignor Duarte De Almeida, Convent Chaplain, and an Extern Sister blocked the door. Carlos Evaristo told the bishops and crowd to go home and they did.

Rick Salbot argues that Carlos Everisto has been attacked since the translation:

- “Carlos was dedicated to Father Gruner before this visit with Sister Lucia. He and his wife and children made their living working for Father Gruner as a travel consultant arranging all their pilgrimages. Now he knew the truth about Father Gruner and he was stuck far away in Fatima, without money, not having been paid, and holding many bills of travel from Gruner's Crusade. "I have not been paid for my services since November. Several phenomenal bills in the thousands of dollars have been left unpaid by The Fatima Crusader. Telephone bills, faxes, lawyer's fees, taxi, hotel payments, some of these still left from Fr. Gruner's October Peace Conference."”
-March 1993, Mrs. Sedore and Mrs. Clarke came to Fatima to make Carlos change what Sr. Lucy said.
-they offered to pay what he was owed if he issued their “corrected” statements
-Coralie Graham, editor of the Fatima Crusader, reported that Everiso is an imposter who never met with the Cardinal
Reply
#2
Unbelivable that anybody would believe that Father Grunner was the problem in the church today.
Reply
#3
Mr. Salbot apparently believes that things are going so well in his diocese and the church with all those solid orthodox courageous bishops and priests we have that its time to punish that lone pesky disobedient Father Grunner.  First he has to tell us why the phrase......in Portugal the dogma of faith will always be preserved doesnt appear in the message they released but was mentioned for decades. Second he must answer Antonio Socci's book where the secretary to John 23rd says there are 2 parts to the Third Secret.  The Third Secret of Fatima reminds me of the translation of  FOR ALL instead of FOR MANY in the Novus Ordo that was pointed out by traditionalists for years until finally Rome agreed that they had been right all along. If they wanted us to accept that the consecration of Russia had been done and Our Lady accepted it it was easy to do. Sister Lucy was up on the podium each time the Popes visited there all she would have to have done is to walk up to the microphone and announce that Our Lady has accepted the Popes consecration. But she never did and Pope John Paul wouldnt make her lie. I personally believe that Our Lady was warning us about the coming apostasy which in 1960 seemed laughable but in 2010 is reality, but the Vatican doesnt want to tell the world that they disobeyed a warning from JESUS;s mother.
Reply
#4
(07-22-2010, 12:18 AM)salus Wrote: First he has to tell us why the phrase......in Portugal the dogma of faith will always be preserved doesnt appear in the message they released but was mentioned for decades.  Second he must answer Antonio Socci's book where the secretary to John 23rd says there are 2 parts to the Third Secret. 

Okay now, let's keep this a discussion about the bullet points I've mentioned.  I did not state that Rick Salbot denies that the controversy surrounding the famous phrase of "the dogma of the faith."  That is not at issue here.  In fact, he states on another page the following concerning the Third Secret of Fatima:

"Considering the third secret of Fatima and the interpretation of it by the Vatican, I could not help but believe that their interpretation was lacking somewhat.  The reason for my belief in a different interpretation of this secret is that I have read the prophesies of many other saints who have seen similar visions of the sufferings and death of a Holy Father."
(07-22-2010, 12:18 AM)salus Wrote: I personally believe that Our Lady was warning us about the coming apostasy which in 1960 seemed laughable but in 2010 is reality, but the Vatican doesnt want to tell the world that they disobeyed a warning from JESUS;s mother.

I think Salbot would agree with you, salus. 

As far as I can tell, Salbot would agree with most of us that the 3rd Secret is being kept hidden from the public. 

If you are interested, here is a link to his take on Fatima:  http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitio...aBook.html.

Now, again, let's keep the discussion to the bullet points I've posted.  I want to know what, of the points I listed, people disagree about.
Reply
#5
    I will admit now, I don't know much about Father Nicholas Gruner.  However, I remember when I first learned about Our Lady of America.  Those were legitimate apparitions.  I paid a great deal of attention to the visions and documentations of the nun who saw the Holy Mother in that one.  It turns out, a pair of lawyers came along and tried to swindle the whole apparition as a sort of money-making scheme.  Like the Medjugorge situation. 
    Heck, I've even gone so far as to read court documents for when several trials occurred regarding lawsuits!  I had to do a bunch of research, because my bishop's office was asking me about it if he were to mention it in the local Catholic magazine.  It's gotten so ridiculous, that every time the Our Lady of America Center mentions the apparition, they have to use a   because of all the legalistic crap that's happened.  Example: Our Lady of America  It's ridiculous, but it's one of the only ways the center has been able to protect itself!
    Here's the official website: http://www.ourladyofamerica.com/main.php

    Now, if swindlers are willing to do this with Our Lady of America, if the racket that is Medjugorge or Garabandal is going on--if these things are happening--then who is to say it isn't happening with Fatima?  Who is to say that although Fr. Gruner appears to be "on our side, the good guy's side"--who is to say he is not like the other swindlers I've read about? 

    I don't know much about Fr. Gruner.  But I do know what Salbot has written about him.  If the points are wrong, please show me on a point-by-point basis.
Reply
#6
If you read this article at the Fatima Network you will find that it answers most if not all of your enquiries.

IN DEFENSE OF FATHER GRUNER: A SUMMARY

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/vsoaap24.asp

Reply
#7
(07-22-2010, 06:01 AM)TerraMariana Wrote: If you read this article at the Fatima Network you will find that it answers most if not all of your enquiries

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/vsoaap24.asp
Those who "harm Our Lady of Fatima" are in the Vatican because Fatima doesn't match at all their agenda.
Rick Salbot would have rather to argue on the document "IN DEFENSE OF FATHER GRUNER: A SUMMARY" step by step if he can, instead of swallowing the pre-digested lies that some high ranked in the Vatican serve him.
Reply
#8
Unfortunately Laramie, I don't think you are going to get the discussion you are looking for. I myself have read about the pros and cons of Fr. Gruner, and as a result, I can have no opinion of him. There are two opposing walls with emotional writings on them. The Grunerites and the anti-Grunerites seem to me to be equally emotional, equally willing to accuse the other side of grave sins and crimes, and no one seems to be willing to adduce verifiable proof anywhere. Either way, one can love Our Lady of Fatima and believe that the consecration did not take place; and one can love Our Lady of Fatima and believe that it indeed did take place. There are suitable arguments on both sides.

I actually find Salbato to be very solid in general. He usually adopts a fiery tone, but that is his right and his choice.

I would really love it if there were someone knowledgeable enough to answer your questions here on FE, but I don't think it will happen. People tend to go nuts in favor or against him. Anyway, good luck trying! I hope you succeed!
Reply
#9
(07-21-2010, 10:18 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: It seems that a fellow named “unknown” here on Fisheaters does not like Rick Salbot, the man who runs the website, unitypublishing.com.  However, I like that website!  And I like Rick Salbot!  Therefore, I am willing to serve as his advocate until he is proven in error on this matter.

His name is Salbato, and he is a mere layman who makes magisterial pronouncements on whether apparitions are true or false.  He used to claim that Rwanda was false but had to change that slightly when the Vatican approved it.  He also claimed that the Lipa apparitions are false; yet, the local ordinary has recently re-opened the investigation into their authenticity.

Under the Garabandal section, this is what he writes:  In the study of true and false apparitions, we have found that Mary and Christ have a particular personality, and so does Satan. Today we can just read the messages and sense the truth by the words. In Garabandal the word "punishment" is used instead of "Chastisement". There are over 400 private revelations about the chastisement, never is the word "punishment" used. The use of "there must be" instead of "My Son desires", or "you must be very good", since the Bible says "only God is good", would not be used my Mary. Think about "spread the message" instead of "do what your superior tells you." Only Satan uses the word "Pope". Our Lady always refers to him as "Holy Father" or "Vicar of Christ".

Regardless of what one thinks of the validity of Garabandal, the problem with that assertion is that, if true, it would invalidate the apparitions of La Salette, where the Blessed Virgin used the word “pope” several times.

It’s absurd to think that one of the reasons an apparition is false is because the Blessed Virgin is alleged to have used the word “pope” to the alleged seer/s.

Mr. Salbato makes many unverified claims in his writings and uses quite a bit of hearsay.  I would ignore his opinions.

Part of Melanie’s secret:  “The pope will be persecuted from all sides…”

Part of Maximin’s secret:  “Then after that, our Holy Father the pope will be persecuted…”

If only Satan uses the word “pope,” as Mr. Salbato amazingly claims, then it was Satan who appeared at La Salette. 

Ridiculous.


 
Reply
#10
(07-22-2010, 09:46 AM)maldon Wrote: Unfortunately Laramie, I don't think you are going to get the discussion you are looking for. I myself have read about the pros and cons of Fr. Gruner, and as a result, I can have no opinion of him. There are two opposing walls with emotional writings on them. The Grunerites and the anti-Grunerites seem to me to be equally emotional, equally willing to accuse the other side of grave sins and crimes, and no one seems to be willing to adduce verifiable proof anywhere. Either way, one can love Our Lady of Fatima and believe that the consecration did not take place; and one can love Our Lady of Fatima and believe that it indeed did take place. There are suitable arguments on both sides.

I actually find Salbato to be very solid in general. He usually adopts a fiery tone, but that is his right and his choice.

I would really love it if there were someone knowledgeable enough to answer your questions here on FE, but I don't think it will happen. People tend to go nuts in favor or against him. Anyway, good luck trying! I hope you succeed!

Yeah, maldon, in hindsight, I think you are right.  After looking at several different kinds of websites last night, there seem to be fiery debates going on between two camps, run purely on emotion with little objectivity.  And you're probably right, in that I will not get objectivity from the Fisheaters on this one.  I think there are pro-Gruner groups who are real passionate about supporting him, in spite of his natural defiance against the Holy See.  
 

-- -- -- --

But then again, this is not purely an argument thread against Gruner.  This is a thread intended to vindicate one of my favorite websites.  

I have more information from Salboto himself.  

This information concerns Carlos Evaristo.  For Salbot, it seems that some things have been clarified.  Here is Rick Salboto's response to my inquiry about Carlos Evaristo.  I was unaware of his current mindset on the matter:

"Let me repeat what I have often said.  I do not like Evaristo and I helped get him kicked out of the Convent of Coimbra.  He was not the translator but he was in the room because he was the driver of the Archbishop.  He took no notes but then used another person to help him put together the book the best he could and pretended that he was the translator and a friend of Lucia which was not true.  

However, and this is the rub.  When I checked the fact of the book with Lucia and the convent they found nothing wrong with it and the facts were correct.  Although I hate to support anything Evaristo does, I have to support this book as far as the content – but he was not the author as he claims.  

Rick"


So there we have it.  New information that I had not previously found on Unity Publishing.  In fact, the link I provided and outlined was uploaded back a few years ago.  Perhaps something new came to light for Salbot, and he just hasn't taken the old page down.  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)