Archbishop Blase Cupich's influence to grow with elevation to cardinal

[pnewton]

chicagotribune.com/news/ct-archbishop-cupich-rome-cardinal-preview-met-20161117-story.html
A ray of sunshine for the day.

On Saturday, his influence on the Catholic church will grow beyond Chicago, when Cupich, 67, is elevated to the rank of cardinal, the Catholic hierarchy’s most prestigious title next to the papacy. Along with two other American bishops and more than a dozen others from around the world, he will receive his red hat from Pope Francis in Rome at the Basilica of St. Peter.

 

[pnewton]

Here is another article on one of the new Cardinals.

americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/new-us-cardinal-says-pope-francis-has-many-more-fans-foes

Cardinal-designate Joseph Tobin does not hold back when expressing his admiration for Pope Francis, who will create 17 new cardinals on Saturday, including Archbishop Tobin.

The third American Cardinal-to-be is Bishop Kevin Farrell, “formerly the bishop of Dallas and now the head of a Vatican office dealing with family issues.”

This will bring the total to 121 electors, at least for a few days. The cap set by Pope Paul VI was 120, but Cardinal Sarr turns 80 in a week or so and will not longer be an elector.

 

[Convert_in_99]

OK, dumb convert here …what is the difference between a Cardinal and a Bishop exactly. A Cardinal is an “exulted” Bishop, but what is the difference in terms of duties, authority and jurisdictions?

 

[pnewton]

OK, dumb convert here …what is the difference between a Cardinal and a Bishop exactly. A Cardinal is an “exulted” Bishop, but what is the difference in terms of duties, authority and jurisdictions?

A bishop is one who is given authority over a territory. He is an elevated priest. A cardinal is someone who is part of the group to elect the pope. There are a lot more bishops than cardinals. Most bishops are cardinals, but not all. A priest, deacon and even a layman might be a cardinal.

 

[Withburga]

There are a lot more bishops than cardinals.

Yes.

Most bishops are cardinals, but not all.

No. I think you may have phrased this mistakenly?

A priest, deacon and even a layman might be a cardinal.

And no.

Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

See:vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P19.HTM

Most bishops are not cardinals (there are around 200 cardinals out of more than 5000 bishops); only priests or bishops can be appointed as cardinals; and priests who are not bishops must be ordained bishop to be appointed as cardinals. Previously it was possible for deacons and men in minor orders to be appointed as cardinals, but it is not so under current canon law.

In Christ,
Withburga

 

[Wesrock]

OK, dumb convert here …what is the difference between a Cardinal and a Bishop exactly. A Cardinal is an “exulted” Bishop, but what is the difference in terms of duties, authority and jurisdictions?

A Cardinal is a Bishop who holds an office within the diocese of Rome. So when the Cardinals choose the Pope, it means he is chosen by other Bishops within the Roman diocese, which makes sense.

 

[Havard]

Yes.

No. I think you may have phrased this mistakenly?

And no.

Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

See:vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P19.HTM

Most bishops are not cardinals (there are around 200 cardinals out of more than 5000 bishops); only priests or bishops can be appointed as cardinals; and priests who are not bishops must be ordained bishop to be appointed as cardinals. Previously it was possible for deacons and men in minor orders to be appointed as cardinals, but it is not so under current canon law.

In Christ,
Withburga

One more point, to round out your very informative post. The requirement that cardinals must be ordained bishop has been dispensed a few times in recent years, when the cardinal-elects are over 80. So it’s not the norm, but it is possible to have cardinals who aren’t bishops.

 

[Usige]

Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.

See:vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P19.HTM

Most bishops are not cardinals (there are around 200 cardinals out of more than 5000 bishops); only priests or bishops can be appointed as cardinals; and priests who are not bishops must be ordained bishop to be appointed as cardinals. Previously it was possible for deacons and men in minor orders to be appointed as cardinals, but it is not so under current canon law.

In Christ,
Withburga

You are correct that one must be a priest under both the 1983 and 1917 codes, but I guess it depends on if we are talking only about current cardinals or cardinals in the history of the Church.

As for a requiremnet that a priests must be raised to the episcopate, that is not strictly true. I know that St John Paul II gave both Cardinals Tucci and Dulles (Jesuit theologians) a dispensation to not be consecrated as bishops before being created cardinals. Both were over 80 (or near enough) so they would not have been electors.

Strictly speaking, since the restriction is merely a matter of ecclesiastic law, a Pope could give a dispensation to someone that isn’t ordained. I don’t know that it would ever happen, but there is really no reason a Pope couldn’t if they were so disposed. It is actually kind of a funny law in that the Pope is not bound to it, but no one else but he could create a cardinal anyway.

 

[Withburga]

You are correct that one must be a priest under both the 1983 and 1917 codes, but I guess it depends on if we are talking only about current cardinals or cardinals in the history of the Church,

Indeed, this kind of practice has varied a great deal within Church history, but then so have most matters of policy and discipline - hence the past phenomenon of popes appointing boys as priests, bishops and cardinals and providing an instant clerical formation through the power of papal dispensation and ordaining them on the spot. However, the post to which I was responding was talking in the present tense, so I detailed the arrangements as they stand under current law.

It is actually kind of a funny law in that the Pope is not bound to it, but no one else but he could create a cardinal anyway.

As you say, a great deal of canon law can be dispensed by legitimate authority; in this respect, the one who determines and maintains ecclesiastical law is, unsurprisingly, the one who gets to decide when it applies and when it doesn’t. Some Catholics seem to forget that the pope has that privilege by reason of his office, but as you point out, it is entirely normative. Best wishes.

In Christ,
Withburga

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The new Cardinal is an impressive and remarkable man…a gifted ecclesiastic. He will be a great blessing for the Church in the United States for many years to come.

 

[Havard]

OK, dumb convert here …what is the difference between a Cardinal and a Bishop exactly. A Cardinal is an “exulted” Bishop, but what is the difference in terms of duties, authority and jurisdictions?

I do hope that cardinals are exulting!