Need some help on a "Traditional" Parish nearby - I'm confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
There is a rather large “Traditional Catholic” parish north of Cincinnati that I had always assumed was part of the SSPX, however when I was browsing the SSPX website I noted that this location was not there. Instead there was a different location given in town.

This got me to looking more closely at the website of “St Gertrude the Great”.

On the page describing the clergy, I found some interesting things but don’t really know what they mean and hope the good folks here can clear them up for me.

From the website:
Daniel Lytle Dolan was born in 1951 in Detroit Michigan. He began his preparation for the priesthood in 1965 at the archdiocesan minor seminary in Detroit. He continued his studies in the Cistercian Order and at the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Ecône, Switzerland, where was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 29, 1976.

…
In early 1983, as part of a plan to compromise with the modernist Vatican, Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to impose a “liturgical reform” – the 1962 Missal of John XXIII – on SSPX’s American priests. At the same time, the Archbishop insisted that the Americans accept the scandalous marriage annulments granted by modernist tribunals, and work with priests ordained according to the protestantized ordination rite promulgated by Paul VI in 1968.

Nine American priests, including Fr. Dolan, refused, and were promply expelled from SSPX. (Four more would later join them.)

…
In 1989 Fr. Dolan initiated contacts with the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI). Subsequent discussions revealed agreement on major theological issues (the pope, the new sacraments).

In 1991, Bishop Moises Carmona, head of the Mexican traditionalist organization Trento, asked the 12 CMRI priests to elect one of the number to receive episcopal consecration. Bishop Carmona, a respected pastor and former seminary professor in Acapulco, had himself been consecrated a bishop in 1981 by Archbishop P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, former Archbishop of Hué, Viet Nam.

The CMRI fathers selected Fr. Mark A. Pivarunas, whom Bishop Carmona then duly consecrated.

In 1992 Bp. Pivarunas, with a view towards assisting clergy formerly belonging to SSPX, asked Fr. Dolan to receive episcopal consecration. After considerable hesitation, Fr. Dolan agreed in mid-1993.

I have heard that there are traditionalist Group(s) that have gone so far as to “elect” a new “pope”.
OK - My question. Is this parish simply a sedvacanist parish or is it attached to a group trying to set up a “rival pope”.

Please excuse me if any of this sound totally ignorant - I get to plead stupid on much of this. I’m mainly curious because, before I returned to full communion, I had visited the parish a couple of times and was impressed with the services.

Thanks for Any and All information, responses, corrections etc.

Peace
James
 
As far as I know, this group is sedevacantist, but not trying to elect a new pope.

From what I have read from these and similar groups, they tend to look at the worst possible things that happen in the Catholic Church (for which they have various names, because they consider themselves to be the true Catholic Church), and they tend to accept the worst interpretations of the documents of the V2 council, and then put the worst possible interpretation on people’s motives…

All in all, if anyone asks me, I recommend staying away from groups like these because of these tendencies, which seem to reduce them to a sort of insularity reminiscent of cults.
 
If I have understood the article correctly and this parish is connected with CMRI then they are sedevacantist and not conclavist. However, it doesn’t really matter which they are, they aren’t in communion with Rome.
 
They are Sede. Fr Dolan and Fr Cecada left the SSPX for that reason
 
JRKH said:
There is a rather large “Traditional Catholic” parish north of Cincinnati that I had always assumed was part of the SSPX, however when I was browsing the SSPX website I noted that this location was not there. Instead there was a different location given in town.

This got me to looking more closely at the website of “St Gertrude the Great”.

On the page describing the clergy, I found some interesting things but don’t really know what they mean and hope the good folks here can clear them up for me.

OK - My question. Is this parish simply a sedvacanist parish or is it attached to a group trying to set up a “rival pope”.

Please excuse me if any of this sound totally ignorant - I get to plead stupid on much of this. I’m mainly curious because, before I returned to full communion, I had visited the parish a couple of times and was impressed with the services.

Thanks for Any and All information, responses, corrections etc.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
It’s a sedevacantist group. They are not attached to any group trying to set up a “rival pope”. Their Mass is valid of course. They do have beautiful liturgy there. I think by far more than the majority of conciliar services.
 
AlphaOmega said:
It’s a sedevacantist group. They are not attached to any group trying to set up a “rival pope”. Their Mass is valid of course. They do have beautiful liturgy there. I think by far more than the majority of conciliar services.
Click to expand...
OK - Now I’m confused even more.
Their mass is valid???
By who’s definition???
They don’t recognize Rome, does Rome recognize them??

Peace
James
 
I think this is the answer, but I’m not 100% sure. Their mass is valid because they have valid apostolic succession (just like the Greek Orthodox) because of who they were ordained by, but it’s illicit (illegal). So the Real Presence is there, but since they’re not in good standing with Rome, I think it’s a (mortal) sin for them to use their priestly faculties.
 
which group? 3 or more are mentioned in the citation

the parish whose website is quoted?
either of at least 2 religious orders to which the priest belonged at various times?
the group who consecrated him?
these answers don’t seem helpful to OP

it reads as if this Fr Dolan tried to disasocciate himself from schismatic groups, but the way it is cited it is hard to tell.

Op would best be served by calling the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and simply asking about the status of the parish and the priest
 
puzzleannie said:
these answers don’t seem helpful to OP

it reads as if this Fr Dolan tried to disasocciate himself from schismatic groups, but the way it is cited it is hard to tell.
Click to expand...
Annie, there is no question. All who have answered :“sede” are correct. Click the link in the OP and go to articles and read the one about the mention of the Pope in the cannon. You won’t have to read past the first couple of paragraphs.

(proceed to pray for them)
 
No, there is no question.

They are sedevacantist.

They are not connected with the CMRI.

They are not interested in any silly papal elections.

Their Masses are valid because they are validly ordained priests.
 
JRKH said:
OK - Now I’m confused even more.
Their mass is valid???
By who’s definition???
They don’t recognize Rome, does Rome recognize them??

Peace
James
Click to expand...
You should call your diocese office to see if that parish is in communion with Rome. If they are not-don’t go.
 
At_Trent said:
Annie, there is no question. All who have answered :“sede” are correct. Click the link in the OP and go to articles and read the one about the mention of the Pope in the cannon. You won’t have to read past the first couple of paragraphs.

(proceed to pray for them)
Click to expand...
I read the whole website, and the community sounds confused, but the history is very garbled, so I don’t know what various responders are addressing in their answers. Still wise to call the diocese then OP won’t be in any doubt and will know if her Mass obligation was met.
 
Unfortunately, there is no question about this: Bishop Daniel Dolan is a sede. I knew him personally when he was still with the SSPX (actually even before that), and was part of the break-away group that founded the SSPV. He eventually broke from that to the SSGG. He is a sede,
 
JRKH said:
OK - My question. Is this parish simply a sedvacanist parish or is it attached to a group trying to set up a “rival pope”.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know that there is, in fact, much difference between the two things, but I doubt they’re trying to set-up an anti-pope as such. To accomplish that (and have it recognized by anyone outside of an asylum) there would have to be some participation of bishops from beyond the (in)famous Thuc-line. It is, of course, possible, but I doubt they’d get it.
 
puzzleannie said:
I read the whole website, and the community sounds confused, but the history is very garbled, so I don’t know what various responders are addressing in their answers. Still wise to call the diocese then OP won’t be in any doubt and will know if her Mass obligation was met.
Click to expand...
Here is what I base my answer on, and I didn’t read anything on the site except the first 4 paragraphs of the article.

traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf

If calling H.H. a heretic and therefore not our pope doesn’t convince you, I don’t see how a phone call will. 🤷
 
puzzleannie said:
I read the whole website, and the community sounds confused, but the history is very garbled, so I don’t know what various responders are addressing in their answers. Still wise to call the diocese then OP won’t be in any doubt and will know if her Mass obligation was met.
Click to expand...
(The OP (me) is a"him":p)

No concern here as to my mass obligation. There are plenty of NO Catholic parishes in the area already so there is no need to consider any other type. In addition there is a beautiful EF every week near downtown about 25 minutes from me. As well as a recognized SSPX Chapel in town.

I just recall this parish developing, and had been ther a couple of times years ago.

I appreciate everyones (name removed by moderator)ut. It has clarified much, though I still don’t really understand all the ins and outs of it.
The upshot is that, even if this parish offers a"valid" mass (which seems dicey to me), it would require highly extrordinary circumstances to justify attendance here rather than at another parish.

Peace
James
 
I wonder which litrugical books are used at this parish. The only reason I wonder is because the SSPV, didn’t like that Archbishop Lefebvre asked the SSPX to use the books as used in 1962, since they considered even that rite to have been corrupted to some extent by the modernist heresey (I think a few of the objections were in regards to adding a feast day for St. Joseph and Pople John XXIII had modified some of the Holy Week prayers in that missal from previous additions).

Does anybody here know what I’m talking about or am I off base on this?

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
I wonder which litrugical books are used at this parish. The only reason I wonder is because the SSPV, didn’t like that Archbishop Lefebvre asked the SSPX to use the books as used in 1962, since they considered even that rite to have been corrupted to some extent by the modernist heresey (I think a few of the objections were in regards to adding a feast day for St. Joseph and Pople John XXIII had modified some of the Holy Week prayers in that missal from previous additions).

Does anybody here know what I’m talking about or am I off base on this?
Click to expand...
They would not use the Missale Romanum of 1962, but instead the previous printing which, I believe, was from the early 1950s (reprinted according to the editio typica of 1920).

As for the Holy Week rites, I don’t know if they use the “revised” rituals of 1955 (which were declared mandatory in that year by Pius XII) or not.
 
Just out of curiosity, in the website’s photo album they have some photos of a Mass being said by a Bishop. As they aren’t affiliated with the SSPX that I know of, who is the Bishop pictured?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top