Well, there have always been episcopal Councils, Synods, Consistories, and such. National “conferences” seem to be forms of such things on a more specific level. Even before there were national bishops conferences, there certainly were certainly Plenary Councils (such as the ones at Baltimore from which the American Catechism came.)What are your positions on episcopal conferences (like the USCCB)? Some people think that it is part of the hierarchy, while others do not. Please explain your opinions. I personally believe it is too democratic…the church has a hierarchical structure…it is not a democracy.
If it is so, that is only because individual bishops are allowing themselves to be compromised. But that well could have happenned even without such conferences.It is true that there have always been similar councils and synods, but I believe the current system of Episcopal Conferances is undermining the hierarchy by imposing a democratic structure and diminishing the authority of individual hierarchs.
Well, how so? In the U.S., especially, did they truly have as much power and privilege as in some old world places?Primates and Metropolitan Archbishops have been relieved of much of their former power, and in many ways some of the privileges of the Papacy as well.
If anything, it seems that it is more of parliamentary thinking than democratic.Episcopal Conferences these days seem to support a democratic thinking of the Church, which if you think about it, is quite evil.
How and when have the conference ever been seeking ways to oppose the Pope? Given, there have been times within certain conferences when they have had to deal with realities of the local culture which make matters challenging and hard to accomplish in a simple manner of application. This occasionally finds itself in wrestling with Rome. But opposition?I guess it could be called parliamentary when they are not seeking ways to oppose the Pope.
Not blatant opposition (unless you count several issues with the Canadian bishops…), but there have been many circumstances of these conferances ignoring Papal directives or “interpreting” documents in a way that suits them.How and when have the conference ever been seeking ways to oppose the Pope? Given, there have been times within certain conferences when they have had to deal with realities of the local culture which make matters challenging and hard to accomplish in a simple manner of application. This occasionally finds itself in wrestling with Rome. But opposition?
Such as?Not blatant opposition (unless you count several issues with the Canadian bishops…), but there have been many circumstances of these conferances ignoring Papal directives or “interpreting” documents in a way that suits them.
There is already a Primate of Canada, the Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec City.I would suggest calling for the Abolition and disbanding of the USSCB, and the Establishment of an Orthodox and traditional Catholic Primate and/or Patriachate to govern the dioceses, and Archdioceses of the United States, and Canada.
Soon after the publication of Humanae Vitae, the Canadian bishop’s conferance voted to ignore the encyclical and declared that contraception was a matter of conscience. That doesnt sound too faithful to me.Such as?
Again, I can see where there are legitimate challenges faced and there is a need for some genuine give and take between the local conferences and Rome (take Ex Corde Ecclesiae and the mandatum as one clear example of such). But these are cases where simplistically trying to impose some general directive as handed down from the dicastry would have only been utter failure in practice.
Alright, so that was 40 years ago. And a reflection of the times. Had there been no CBC many individual bishops, obviously, would have just done the same on their own (seeing as how they are the ones who voted such). It doesn’t make the idea or practice of an episcopal conference inherantly bad, though.Soon after the publication of Humanae Vitae, the Canadian bishop’s conferance voted to ignore the encyclical and declared that contraception was a matter of conscience. That doesnt sound too faithful to me.
Whatever happened to “Roma locuta est, causa finita est”? Rome has spoken, the cause if finished. Why do episcopal conferences always make reference to “cultural realities” or “cultural difficulties” for not implementing things? It seems clear that many bishops do NOT want to obey Rome (look at the many of the statements about Summorum Pontificum), but also don’t want to be open about it. So they find ways to drag their feet and make excuses for not implementing what Rome calls for. This seems to be the Protestant principle of individual interpretation. BIshops or Conferences saying “I/we know what Rome says, be I/we will determine how/when/or if I/we will implement it”. Just look at the almost non-existent implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae in this country in direct contradiction to the will of Rome.How and when have the conference ever been seeking ways to oppose the Pope? Given, there have been times within certain conferences when they have had to deal with realities of the local culture which make matters challenging and hard to accomplish in a simple manner of application. This occasionally finds itself in wrestling with Rome. But opposition?
I would posit that things really always have been this way in some sense. We just hear more about it in our era with the way in which communications have brought the world closer together. Further, what most seem to be talking about in this thread is the silly season which was part of “The Sixties” which is really distinct from anything that has to do with the bishops’ conference itself, but obviously would have still expressed itself in the way which it did with or without a conference. Finally, perhaps one of the reasons why the bishops appeal to cultural difficulties is because they truly exist. Sure, they could have tried to directly impose Ex Corde Ecclasiae, for instance. And they would have failed misreably. If they wanted the universities to go along, they needed to engage in extensive dialog and compromise. Otherwise, we would have just been left with the same situation which we had, anyway, and no real improvement at all.Whatever happened to “Roma locuta est, causa finita est”? Rome has spoken, the cause if finished. Why do episcopal conferences always make reference to “cultural realities” or “cultural difficulties” for not implementing things? It seems clear that many bishops do NOT want to obey Rome (look at the many of the statements about Summorum Pontificum), but also don’t want to be open about it. So they find ways to drag their feet and make excuses for not implementing what Rome calls for. This seems to be the Protestant principle of individual interpretation. BIshops or Conferences saying “I/we know what Rome says, be I/we will determine how/when/or if I/we will implement it”. Just look at the almost non-existent implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae in this country in direct contradiction to the will of Rome.
I would agree that cultural difficulties do exist. Where I have an issue is using that as an excuse to either ignore the directives from Rome or spend 10 years or more in dialogue and still have no real change. Ex Corde is still failing miserably even with the dialogue.I would posit that things really always have been this way in some sense. We just hear more about it in our era with the way in which communications have brought the world closer together. Further, what most seem to be talking about in this thread is the silly season which was part of “The Sixties” which is really distinct from anything that has to do with the bishops’ conference itself, but obviously would have still expressed itself in the way which it did with or without a conference. Finally, perhaps one of the reasons why the bishops appeal to cultural difficulties is because they truly exist. Sure, they could have tried to directly impose Ex Corde Ecclasiae, for instance. And they would have failed misreably. If they wanted the universities to go along, they needed to engage in extensive dialog and compromise. Otherwise, we would have just been left with the same situation which we had, anyway, and no real improvement at all.