Authority of the USCCB?

[Elzee]

Can someone help me understand the purpose/authority of the USCCB?

Do they have authority over U.S. Bishops or is a Bishop only under the authority of the Pope and he’s free to decide if he will follow USCCB directives, guidelines…? (not sure what to call them).

If they do determine guidelines specifically for the U.S., as long as they do not contradict Rome I’m assuming, can someone give me a few examples.

Thank you. This is from their site, but it’s not very specific in regards to authority or what it means by ‘pastoral functions’.
Thanks!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States. The purpose of the Conference is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place. This purpose is drawn from the universal law of the Church and applies to the episcopal conferences which are established all over the world for the same purpose.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Can someone help me understand the purpose/authority of the USCCB?

Do they have authority over U.S. Bishops or is a Bishop only under the authority of the Pope and he’s free to decide if he will follow USCCB directives, guidelines…? (not sure what to call them).

If they do determine guidelines specifically for the U.S., as long as they do not contradict Rome I’m assuming, can someone give me a few examples.

Thank you. This is from their site, but it’s not very specific in regards to authority or what it means by ‘pastoral functions’.
Thanks!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States. The purpose of the Conference is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place. This purpose is drawn from the universal law of the Church and applies to the episcopal conferences which are established all over the world for the same purpose.

As the statement indicates, the conference draws its purpose from Canon Law.

If they do determine guidelines specifically for the U.S., as long as they do not contradict Rome I’m assuming, can someone give me a few examples.

See, for instance, the USCCB Adaptations to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal – Most if not all of which are specifically granted by the universal GIRM. As an example, the IGMR #160 states: *Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit *(The faithful communicate kneeling or standing, according to the ruling of the Episcopal Conference) – The USCCB has determined that the norm for reception of Communion in dioceses of the United States is standing.

tee

 

[Elzee]

See, for instance, the USCCB Adaptations to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal – Most if not all of which are specifically granted by the universal GIRM. As an example, the IGMR #160 states: *Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit *(The faithful communicate kneeling or standing, according to the ruling of the Episcopal Conference) – The USCCB has determined that the norm for reception of Communion in dioceses of the United States is standing.

tee

Oh yeah - I forgot about that little example there.

So, are U.S. Bishops *bound *to follow USCCB adaptations, directives? I guess I never thought of the USCCB has having actual authority over our Bishops.

 

[tee_eff_em]

So, are U.S. Bishops *bound *to follow USCCB adaptations, directives? I guess I never thought of the USCCB has having actual authority over our Bishops.

On a recent thread, [thread=114980]United States Conference of Catholic Bishops[/thread], Br. Rich SFO alluded to a document that might answer this question, but no more information was provided.

tee

 

[Elzee]

I should have done a search first - those are the exact questions I’m asking too.

I’d like to find the JPII document referenced if anyone knows it.

It logically seems to me that a Bishop is under the authority of Rome and would not technically be ‘bound’ to accept specific directions given by the USCCB - I’d think that could potentially open up Pandora’s Box…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is a link to Canon Law that speaks of the Episcopal Conference.

CHAPTER IV : EPISCOPAL CONFERENCES

 

[Elzee]

Thank you so much for the link. Wish I was a lawyer, but, by the paragraph below, it sounds like a Bishop is not bound by what comes out of the USCCB unless ALL the U.S. Bishops agree to be bound by it, or the Holy See gives a mandate. Is that correct?

This brings to mind the Review Board and Bishop Bruskewitz - is this why he was not bound to particpate? He was acting on his ‘own competence’ as stated below?

In cases where neither the universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See gives the Episcopal Conference the power mentioned in §1, the competence of each diocesanBishop remains intact. In such cases, neither the Conference nor its president can act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent.

 

[estesbob]

No individual Bisho is bound by the USCCB. They answer only to the Vatican

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I know I don’t have a perfect understanding of the competencies of the USCCB but I think the simplest and most important thing to know is that it only has power when this has been specifically granted to it, and typically the decisions made when exercising this power have to get approval from Rome. So it is possible for an individual bishop to buck the trend of the USCCB, but this isn’t a categorical freedom because in some cases Rome makes the decisions of the USCCB particular law for the U.S.

 

[Elzee]

I know I don’t have a perfect understanding of the competencies of the USCCB but I think the simplest and most important thing to know is that it only has power when this has been specifically granted to it, and typically the decisions made when exercising this power have to get approval from Rome. So it is possible for an individual bishop to buck the trend of the USCCB, but this isn’t a categorical freedom because in some cases Rome makes the decisions of the USCCB particular law for the U.S.

That’s an excellent summary. Thank you.

So, kind of a side question to help me clarify this with an example, but since I started the thread I’ll take a little liberty here…back to my Bruskewitz example…it sounds like Bruskewitz is within his authority as Bishop to not allow the NRB in since that directive of the USCCB was not approved by Rome - it is strictly coming from the USCCB?
Does that appear to be accurate?

 

[Corki]

That’s an excellent summary. Thank you.

So, kind of a side question to help me clarify this with an example, but since I started the thread I’ll take a little liberty here…back to my Bruskewitz example…it sounds like Bruskewitz is within his authority as Bishop to not allow the NRB in since that directive of the USCCB was not approved by Rome - it is strictly coming from the USCCB?
Does that appear to be accurate?

I think the real issue with the NRB is that the NRB itself has no authority over a Bishop regardless of what the USCCB might wish. The Bishops directly answer to the Pope so unless the Pope tells a Bishop to submit to the authority of the NRB, there isn’t any binding reason to do so. The USCCB can not *give *authority to an outside entity.

 

[CRW]

Oh yeah - I forgot about that little example there.

So, are U.S. Bishops *bound *to follow USCCB adaptations, directives? I guess I never thought of the USCCB has having actual authority over our Bishops.

When they make changes, lets see to the GIRM or when authorized to the Canon, they vote. An approval requires 2/3 votes for acceptance.

 

[Elzee]

When they make changes, lets see to the GIRM or when authorized to the Canon, they vote. An approval requires 2/3 votes for acceptance.

But it also has to be approved by Rome before it’s bindng - correct?