Search This Blog

Monday, December 19, 2016

It's a Sad Christmas for The Sheep in Exile at St. Peter's

In fact, it's a "sardine" Christmas since Fr. Tuck has eliminated one of the Masses (on a Sunday no less) so one can expect to be jammed into the pews with many folks standing in the aisles...unless, of course, they are in-the-know and choose another parish for Mass.

I confess at this point I think Fr. Grinnell has a problem with belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. According to witnesses, he doesn't bend the knee at the Consecration. One would like to believe he has serious knee problems, but goes skiing on his vacation  so that's a little hard to believe. He eliminated Thanksgiving Mass altogether in favor of an ecumenical prayer service. And now, for Christmas which falls on a Sunday, he eliminates one of the usual Sunday Masses. On Christmas...when people who don't come the rest of the year crowd the pews!

Please, Father, what is going on at St. Peters?

I can't help recalling Fulton Sheen talking about unfaithful priests, especially those who leave. At a conference on the Eucharist in 1974, Sheen spoke about Judas and related him to the priesthood saying:
Can you think of the first time that the fall of Judas is mentioned in the Gospels; the very first time? If you can recall that moment then you can have the answer to why there is a break in the priesthood. Where is the first mention of the fall of Judas? The day our Lord announced the Eucharist! When did Judas leave? The night our Lord gave the Eucharist! He broke at the announcement of the Eucharist....
When do priests begin to break? When they lose their faith in the Eucharist! It is not seen, it is not commented upon, a dozen other explanations will be given and the faith is generally lost long before others see the loss. There is predictability about those who leave the priesthood as is evident from this 6th chapter of John.

Our Blessed Lord had to live with this man for two years yet; think of it! He did not say who the devil was, He merely said, “One of you is the devil.” John, later on of course wrote the name. Now you know why we have centered this retreat on the Eucharist. There has never yet been a priest, who daily kept his faith in the Eucharist by watching an hour with the Lord who ever left him; no priest ever will! And those who are thinking of leaving… and I have many such letters in my possession about such men, from such men, who have come back because they restored their faith in the Eucharist.

So, this is the beginning of the break but they stay in. As I told you Demas left, he went back to the world as Paul simply put it, but others will destroy from within. A young priest told me within six months after his ordination, “I was ordained to try to destroy the Church from within.” If they would only leave, but they stay.
Pray for Fr. Grinnell. Jesus told us, "By their fruits you will know them." The fruits at St. Peter's since Fr. Tuck arrived are very rotten indeed for the poor Catholic families who love the Eucharist!


  1. The abuses he perpetuates go on without interdiction from the chancery officials, who have been made known of the offenses for quite a while. Rather than investigate, interview parishioners, or intervene, they cower behind their desks and do nothing. It took letters and face-to-face appointments to even have them look into the fact that this pastor was refusing absolution in the confessional. I can personally attest that I have never seen him genuflect, or even bow at the tabernacle when crossing in front of it. He plays loose with the rubrics, and leaves out "Almighty" from the final blessing; he has removed missals and traditional hymnals; he hires and fires at will members of the Parish Council and finance committees; he brings in untrained lecturers to dispense modernist and leftist propaganda to his parishioners ; he injects his own twisted theology into his "sermons", such as proclaiming that King David raped Bathsheba. He is a textbook modernist who pushes the envelope quite well because he knows that being out in the boondocks is exactly where the bishop wants him. Better to kill a small insignificant parish, then one closer to the "flagpole" who's parishioners might be of greater influence and wealth. This once vibrant parish is suffering tremendously under his reign and without intervention from the bishop this will continue indefinitely. Father Grenell knows that he has the ultramodernist at the Vatican covering his backside… he also knows that time is on his side and his drip-by-drip dismantling of all things orthodox at St. Peter's will continue under the nose of the bishop and his vicars--I view him as a angry and bitter priest who was sent here against his will and is now getting back at those who sent him. Continue to pray for the pope, the bishop, priests, especially those like Father Grinnell.

  2. Did Father really "refuse" absolution? I find that hard to believe.

  3. He would only say "I forgive you" rather than the correct form of absolution. When brought to his attention by an adult parishioner, he said it didn't matter, forgiveness and absolution were both the same. I pray he has corrected this.

  4. Wow! That is worse because the penitent is led to believe his is absolved when he isn't. I checked this out on EWTN's website and this was the answer:

    The form is the words of absolution. A priest has a moral obligation to say the entire form "I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." However, as to what is truly essential in this, it has been commonly taught that only "I absolve you" constitutes the essential form, as this states what is taking place. This form suffices in an emergency, though "from your sins" should ordinarily be appended. Substitutions of these core words, however, such has by "I forgive you," renders the sacrament probably invalid. Absolution speaks of the change of soul by the infusion of grace, that which is commonly taught as actually remitting sin. "I forgive you" is too generic, and does not precisely state what is occurring. It is seriously wrong, in any case, to deliberately place any sacrament's validity in doubt by altering the essential form or matter of a sacrament. It is one of those cases in which the common good of a parish obliges us to act to correct if we know the truth, speaking first to the priest, and then to the bishop, if necessary.

    See the complete question and answer at