In reading much of the discussions on here and other forums recently, I am continuing to see a loose use of certain terms, which in reality have very specific meanings.  The consequence of this poor usage has consequences, usually very negative ones at that.  Some examples are:

Parish:  I keep seeing traditional chapels or mass centers being called "parishes."  This is inaccurate, as they were never established by legitimate authority.  The traditional chapels are privately owned entities, either by individuals or groups with non-profit status.  They are not Church owned and operated properties.  They have no status in the Catholic Church.  Catholics generally do not have any rights at these places that would normally be given to them under Canon Law at Church owned properties.

A Catholic is under no obligation to attend or support any of these mass centers, as they are private and not a parish established in a diocese.  If a Catholic chooses to attend one or another private chapel that is his choice.

Read more on Parishes:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11499b.htm

Pastor:  Another commonly misuses term is Pastor, and this is also a very specific Catholic term that does not apply to the priest leader of a private chapel, whether he is a bishop or a priest.  A pastor holds an office in the Church, and cannot be self appointed.  He has care of souls over Catholics in a certain territory which can only be given by a legitimate bishop of a diocese.

If a Catholic wishes to find their pastor, they can to buy a Catholic directory, and see who the last legitimately appointed pastor of their local parish was, and see if he is still alive.  Many of these priests have kept the Faith, and it may be a good exercise for Catholics to visit their true pastors if they are still around and speak to them, and pray for them.  If they have not kept the Faith obviously stay away from them.

Read more about what a pastor is:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11537b.htm

Traditional Priest:  a priest, who, due to the crisis in the Church, is ordained, but who has not been given a mission by the Church, i.e., is not sent by any legitimate bishop of the Church.  These priests are trained in unapproved seminaries, and with the exception of those ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Castro de Mayer, have been ordained by bishops who have no standing or approval to ordain priests.  These priests have not been given any approval by any legitimate authority to function as a Catholic priest, and do so only under the idea that the the extreme emergency in the  Church would allow them to function in order to bring the sacraments to Catholics.

These priests do not receive any supervision from the legitimate authority of the Church, and in effect are policed by no one except each other.  

Traditional Bishop:  With the exception of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer, as stated above, who were sent by the Church, all other traditional bishops have no standing in the Church.  They have no authority to rule over Catholics in any sense, they along with the traditional priests bring the sacraments, but do not govern the flock.  They along with traditional priests cannot bind the conscience of a fellow Catholic.  

With this said, one may ask, are traditional clergy permissible?  This is a controversial topic, and in the end must be settled by the legitimate authority of the Church, i.e. the pope.  Strictly speaking, there is no theologian that I am aware of, that specifically teaches the lawfulness of "emergency priests," but this situation that we are living through is unprecedented, and may not have been forseen by them.  

But, regardless of whether they have a right to exist, the fact is that they do, and Catholics need to be aware of who they are and what their place in the Church really is.  Too often Catholics longing for a sense of normalcy, as existed in former times, suspend their caution, and begin to treat these extraordinary clergy as they would the true Catholic shepherds and priests.  This is a very dangerous trend in my view.  

I think we should respect the good extraordinary priests, who long to bring the sacraments, and do so with love and charity, but be very careful about any who seek to control or govern the flock.  With that said, Catholics should be very cautious around any bishop  priest who attempts to bind their conscience to any issue not specifically written about by the theologians.  Such issues in our times, include where one attends Mass, the validity of holy orders, the status of the post Vatican II papal claimants, etc.  

I think that people are using the term 'parish' and 'parishoners' and 'pastor' differently now.

A pastor is the main priest at a certain chapel.

A permanent chapel that has a school and large community that regularly attends is called a parish.

I have heard more than one priest refer to the people who regularly attend their chapels as parishoners. This despite the fact the people may live 20-60 miles away from the church. These people do sign a sheet when they regularly attend a chapel. This has their address and contact information. Doesn't mean they are expected to attend all the time or send their kids to the school.

W/regard to the respect due to priests - if you believe them to be valid and who frequently hold the Blessed Sacrament in their hands - then they are due respect.

Bishops like Bishop Dolan do not have this hierarchial power over the priests they ordain. But I don't think they have claimed to have anything like that. That is why they sign contracts with those priests, I believe.

Blind respect and obedience to any religious entity (priest, nun, bishop, archbishop) is completely different. You are right, but too limiting.

Let's go back to pre-V2 times when some of the priest scandals were beginning to develop and occur. How many of those events could have been avoided if people used an element of common sense while practicing their faith?

Could V2 have been avoided if priests were expected to stick to church teachings, instead of growing tainted by outside influences?

Elizabeth,

I am very sorry for the suffering you have had to endure.  So many Catholics in this time of crisis are just trying to be good Catholics, and are trying to protect their families, but it seems that despite that, the dangers are everywhere, even in many cases at the chapels they attend.

I have personally witnessed many tragedies at traditional chapels, and I am aware of many more, and has been awful to watch as good Catholics are scandalized.  

One thing among many that we have learned from this crisis is the absolute need for the Hierarchy of the Church to keep functioning.  For the first time in Church history, we are witnessing before our eyes what happens to Catholics when there is no pope and hardly any bishops to govern the flock.  Even the remaining bishops who are authorized to govern the flock, are confused about their role, and are doing nothing anyway.  

I think every Catholic needs to pray extra for a pope, because only a Pope can lawfully appoint bishops and re-build the Hierarchy.  The Church needs to be governed, and the only men on earth who have the power and the right to govern Christ's flock are the Pope and the lawful bishops appointed by him.

The abuses of authority many of us have suffered under the guise of End Times emergency, or lack of a pope, are just as bad as those of the Boogyman enemy whom they claim to resist.

Although there have been many courageous priests who did not sell out to a New Church, many of them have died.  Many have passed away in the past three years.  A few of them were 'big shots" but most were not.  As far as I know, most of them did not run schools.

What is the legacy of the famous Nine(or twelve) thirty years down the line?  How many scandals have they turned a blind eye to or covered up in order to save face?  

Is this really all the fault of a 'no pope'?  Or did some of these priests have problems with authority themselves which made them less than ideal candidates for the running of grade schools, despite their high intelligence?  

They won huge material gains in the Civil courts against their spiritual father Abp. Lefebvre.  They decided Abp Lefebvre had no moral authority to own SSPX properties.  But now that they own their own chapels and schools, it is a different story, no?

 I can't buy the cliche about the devil attacking them because they are so holy.  Thirty years down the line they would have learned some harsh and valuable lessons, and they would not need to surround themselves with relatives and self-serving sycophants to assure them they are never wrong.

 



 



 

  Parishes are small, aren't they? How many parishes are in one city?
  I am at the loss to figure it out.... Tehran is a metropolice, may be it is an archdioess in itself. Or perhaps an archdiocess must be as big as a country? What about Isfahan where 12 churches are located in one area outside of which, you cannot find a single church?
????

Well, not exactly...

    * Ahwaz (Chaldean) (Archeparchy)
    * Ispahan (Diocese); Historical, see Ispahan (Archdiocese)
    * Ispahan {Esfáan) (Armenian) (Eparchy)
    * Ispahan (Archdiocese)
    * Salmas {Shahpour} (Chaldean) (Diocese)
    * Sehna (Chaldean) (Archdiocese); Historical, see Teheran (Chaldean) (Archdiocese)
    * Teheran (Chaldean) (Archdiocese)
    * Urmya {Rezayeh} (Chaldean) (Archdiocese)

Spouse,

Here are a couple of websites for the Chaldean Catholic Church (the first is in English, the second one in Arabic, I think):

http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=59&IndexView=toc

http://www.st-adday.com/


The Archbishop of Tehran is Ramzi Garmo, seen here in a recent visit to California:

http://www.kaldaya.net/2009/11/Nov17_09_E1_MarRamziGarm_SaintMaryChurch.html