I'm confused as to why such extensive efforts ( texts , emails, etc) were made to include Bishop Dolan when certain parties are alleging that Fr Collins did not request his involvement.

My wife was not "alleging" anything.  To allege is to assert without proof.  We have not read Fr. Collins Will but are in communication with those who have.  Fr. Collins made John Sharpe, his dear friend for many years and compatriot for liturgical excellence, the executor of his estate and last Will.  Therefore, John Sharpe has the legal and moral authority to make all decisions regarding Fr. Collins funeral and those decisions should be respected by all.  This can be a very difficult and thankless responsibility but I could not ask for a better Catholic man of tested virtue to perform this task than John Sharpe.  The implications made on this thread and others often anonymously suggest that John Sharpe is not fulfilling Fr. Collins will and is cynically using his authority as executor to collect money that is not needed for the funeral expenses for his own ends.  Those who have made this insinuation without a  shred of evidence are guilty of grave calumny.  Are they so stupid that they believe that God cannot impute guilt to "anonymous" sin?

Fr. Collins made John Sharpe his executor therefore, John has the authority and responsibility for the direction of every detail in the funeral arrangements and this selection proves the insight of Fr. Collins.  In his Will, Fr. Collins requested that John Sharpe enroll Bishop Neville, assisted by Frs. McMahon, Ahern, Ringrose, and Zapp, to offer his funeral Mass and burial rites.  Fr. McMahon, who we can assume read Fr. Collin's Will because he signed it as one of the witnesses, on his own authority, contacted Bishop Dolan and tried to set aside both John Sharpe and Fr. Collins last requests regarding his funeral by placing Bishop Dolan in charge.  John Sharpe is not a man to be gainsaid and he stopped this effort by standing up to Fr. McMahon and the others who attempted to usurp the direction of the funeral.  I can only guess at their motives which might be an interesting thread on its own.  These usurpers made every effort to take charge of the entire funeral arrangement which included an obituary asking that bequests be made to St. Gertrude the Great chapel in Ohio implying that that was done at the request of Fr. Collins.

John Sharpe tried repeatedly to contact Bishop Dolan but his calls were not returned.  He also tried to contact him through Bishop Sanborn but ultimately received a message from Bishop Sanborn that telling him that Bishop Dolan is "in charge" of the funeral and he should leave it at that.  John was derogatorily accused by Fr. Cekada of having "claimed (Fr. Collins') body" as if he were guilty of having abused a corpse.  John wanted all to feel comfortable attending Fr. Collins' funeral but at the same time to insure that Fr. Collins last will is carried out to the letter.  And you can be sure of this, it will be.

Thus we have the calumny against John Sharpe because he is standing in the way of these posturing hypocrites.  Well John is a magnanimous gentleman.  He will just turn his back on these insults, but I do not have to.  He has been insulted by villains with a lot more finesse than these bunglers and I am more than happy to expose their bungling.  I have personally been associated with two occasions, and have direct knowledge of a third with docuмentary proof, in which Fr. McMahon has used grossly unethical means in attempts to gain control of traditional organizations and property to feather his own bed.  He drives a wedge between natural ethics and Catholic morality, as if grace and nature were two unrelated categories, believing that his conception of the faith and the nobility of his ends justifies his unethical means.  He is an underhanded conniver.  What he ends up doing is making a mockery of the Catholic religion.

I did not know Fr. Collins well.  He spent Holy Week at Ss. Peter and Paul in York in 2018 and planned to do so again this year until his health failed.  With the help of Fr. Collins, John Sharpe and his family, as well as other generous souls, we had the entire Holy Week ceremonies in 2018.  We were able to do so again this year but Fr. Collins was sorely missed.  Fr. Collins sent a last message to remind the servers not to respond after the readings on Holy Saturday and even entertained the idea of traveling to York for Holy Saturday.  He recognized that liturgy is the work of God and attended this work with loving care and attention to detail.  He will be missed.  In Fr. Collins there was a perfect unity between intention and act in liturgical practice.  Everything was done right and done for the greater glory of God.  John Sharpe will insure that Fr. Collins' funeral rites are in accord with his last wishes.  I will not be able to attend Fr. Collins' funeral but consider it a privilege to have contributed to defraying the expenses, and I have complete confidence that the money contributed will be properly used for that end.  

Drew  

......

John Sharpe tried repeatedly to contact Bishop Dolan but his calls were not returned.  

.....

I still don't understand why John Sharpe tried repeatedly to contact Bishop Dolan.  In the earlier post, he was quoted as saying that this communication was to "coordinate and collaborate with [Bishop Dolan]".  If that was the case, it sounds like he originally wanted to involve Bishop Dolan in carrying out the funeral. What happened?

Drew, I agree with you that Father Collins celebrated mass impeccably, but I’m surprised that you were involved with a priest, who held the sedevacantist position. Are you now holding that position yourself?

Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission as a matter of its by-laws holds dogma as the proximate rule of faith which is always to be taken in its literal sense without exception.  What follows from this is that liturgy is not, and never was, a matter of mere discipline open to the free and independent will of the legislator.  It also follows that sedevacantism & sedeprivationism  (S&S) are untenable theological positions because they necessarily lead to the overturning of dogma.  Both of these last two points are also incorporated in the Mission's by-laws.
 
That being said, we understand that there are theological and moral problems that every Catholic trying to be faithful to God have to resolve within in their own conscience.  S&S are welcome to worship and receive the sacraments at our chapel as long as they recognize the Mission's position and are not trying to undermine it.  Some S&S are so determined in their position that they refuse all communion with us.  So be it.  But many hold it only as a theological possibility and are not settled in this determination. 
 
Fr. Collins knew exactly what our position at Ss. Peter and Paul is.  I never spoke to Fr. Collins a word about S&S and he never said a word about it to me.  His dear friend, John Sharpe, is not a S&Ser.  Fr. Collins was at our chapel during the entire Triduum.  He professed the same Creed with us, prayed in communion without us, received the sacraments from Fr. Waters.   I found Fr. Collins to be a very kind man, a charitable priest, and devout and faithful Catholic.  I regret his passing and have offered many prayers for the blessed repose of his soul.  Fr. Waters is currently offering the thirty day Gregorian Masses for his soul.

Drew 
 

This is not nice at all......I am done with this whole thing!

"Not nice"? It is not intended to be "nice" but accurate and offered as a warning to others.  What I have accused Fr. McMahon, I am willing to substantiate with detailed information.  In this matter of Fr. Collins, he has again behaved in an unethical manner which has lead to accusations of gross impropriety being made against John Sharpe.  It is impossible to defend John Sharpe without identifying who is responsible for this unfortunate matter.  But I affirm that this is not an isolated case with Fr. McMahon but is wholly consistent with his past behavior.  If he wants to defend himself regarding his actions in York, Baltimore and Boston with which I am personally familiar, and now with Fr. Collins, let him do so.
 
Drew

"Not nice"? It is not intended to be "nice" but accurate and offered as a warning to others.  What I have accused Fr. McMahon, I am willing to substantiate with detailed information.  In this matter of Fr. Collins, he has again behaved in an unethical manner which has lead to accusations of gross impropriety being made against John Sharpe.  It is impossible to defend John Sharpe without identifying who is responsible for this unfortunate matter.  But I affirm that this is not an isolated case with Fr. McMahon but is wholly consistent with his past behavior.  If he wants to defend himself regarding his actions in York, Baltimore and Boston with which I am personally familiar, and now with Fr. Collins, let him do so.
 
Drew

The same man that Fr Collins, since before his cancer diagnosis, chose to stay with him and take care of him in the rectory and take on his priestly duties at his chapel?  The same man that Fr Collins named in his Will to be part of his funeral mass?  That same man?  

Maybe, just maybe having been with Father Collins 24/7 for weeks before he died, this man knew better what Fr Collins wanted when he died.     

The will says what the will says.  If Fr Collins has wanted +Dolan to be in charge, he would’ve put it in there.  He didn’t die suddenly; He had plenty of time to change the docuмent.  He obviously didn’t.

No that’s why a will exists; so that everyone knows what was wanted.  And it’s called a “will” for a reason.  The dying person is saying “this is what I will to happen.”  

It wouldn’t be that hard for you to google ny estate law.  If you did you would find out that verbal changes to the will are legally valid.  The only problem with them is that they are hard to prove in court.  But if the executor accepted the testimony of the witnesses he would not be fined for failure to carry out his responsibility.  Also, in a case where the changes have nothing to do with property (such as the naming of a particular priest or bishop to offer the Requiem Mass) there is a very low probability that anyone will object.  But then again we are talking about traditional Catholics who are nothing if not tribal.

“Maybe”?  You can play that game all day and it is a game for those who have nothing better to do.  Maybe, just maybe, Fr. McMahon was there in the same sense that a vulture shows up to comfort the dying.  It was not too long ago he did the same thing with Fr. Casimir Peterson in Baltimore to ingratiate himself for the purpose of getting control of the Reparation Society of the Immaculate Heart of Mary which had several million dollars in the bank.  In doing this Fr. McMahon gave a false spelling of his name and false background to prevent any discovery of his true identity.  When the deception was exposed Fr. Peterson, who had initially been impressed by Fr. McMahon, had the police intervene to prevent any further contact.
 
Fr. Collins trusted Fr. McMahon and requested in his Will that Fr. McMahon assist Bishop Neville at his funeral Mass, but he did not trust him enough to ask him to be the executor of his Will.  That responsibility he entrusted to John Sharpe.  Fr. McMahon betrayed Fr. Collins and tried to replace Bishop Neville with Bishop Dolan and, as said before, I do not think that Bishop Dolan instigated this scheme.  Furthermore, Fr. McMahon has not made any claim that Fr. Collins made any change to his Will to him privately, nor did Fr. McMahon make any effort to have a codicil drafted by Fr. Collins.  What you are speculating on is without any foundation whatsoever.  
 
Now I think you could speculate all you like regarding Fr. McMahon’s motives but what he did does not meet the relatively low standard of common legal or business ethics.  Your attempt to excuse Fr. McMahon necessarily requires casting aspersions on John Sharpe.  So maybe, just maybe, you should leave well enough alone because the more you cast aspersions on John Sharpe, the more problems buried in Fr. McMahon’s past are going to be dragged up because what is being weighed in the balance is the character of these men.    
 
Drew

Drew, because you were so incredibly naive to get conned for years by a fake immoral “priest”, you lost credibility with many people in your ability to judge any man’s character, especially a valid priest. I’d keep my mouth shut, your track record is horrendous.