S
Sir_Knight
Guest
It is my understanding that all Cardinals are already ordained Bishops and out rank Archbishops in the Church hierarchy. So, what are Cardinal-Bishops? Cardinal-Priests? And Cardinal-Deacons?
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
The Cardinals form the Roman clergy who elect the Pope at the next conclave. As such, they are divided into orders. The Cardinal-Deacons are the ones who serve as prefects in the various Curial offices. For example, Raymond Cardinal Burke is the Prefect for the Apostolic Signatura. He is also a Cardinal-Deacon. The Cardinal-Priests are those Cardinals who are Archbishops of their own Sees, such as Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, who is Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. The Cardinal Bishops are special designations made by the Holy Father, himself. The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, while Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was designated Cardinal-Bishop by Blessed Pope John Paul II. As Dean of the College of Cardinals, Ratzinger also had a pallium.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Thank you for your reply but I did not understand most of it 
but again, thank you for trying.
but again, thank you for trying.Meaning what?
pallium?
9
929dad
Guest
Let me see if I can help…
Cardinal-Bishop, Cardinal-Priest, and Cardinal-Deacon are all types of Cardinals. The “rank” following the title doesn’t mean that, for example, Raymond Cardinal Burke, was returned to the diaconate when he was named a cardinal.
Hopefully this article slate.com/id/2064871/ will help explain the differences.
As for the pallium, it is worn by Archbishops and takes the place of the stole. If you do a search, you’ll see lots of examples. Before being elected Pope, the Holy Father was the Dean of the College of Cardinals and wore a pallium as a holder of that office.
Cardinal-Bishop, Cardinal-Priest, and Cardinal-Deacon are all types of Cardinals. The “rank” following the title doesn’t mean that, for example, Raymond Cardinal Burke, was returned to the diaconate when he was named a cardinal.
Hopefully this article slate.com/id/2064871/ will help explain the differences.
As for the pallium, it is worn by Archbishops and takes the place of the stole. If you do a search, you’ll see lots of examples. Before being elected Pope, the Holy Father was the Dean of the College of Cardinals and wore a pallium as a holder of that office.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I’ll try to take a stab at it from another direction and see if it helps clarify things. 
A cardinal technically just means the person is designated to vote for the next pope. A cardinal doesn’t “outrank” an archbishop. An archbishop doesn’t really outrank a bishop; he’s simply the bishop of an archdiocese.
Most cardinals are bishops, but not all. The late Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit priest and theologian, but never a bishop. Oftentimes, the Pope will bestow the title of Cardinal on such theologians once they are past 80 years old (and thus, not eligible to participate in the election of the pope). At the present, all the cardinals under 80 are also bishops, but it does not have to be that way.
From what Benedictgal described (and I never knew the distinction before, so I learned something here too), the titles “Cardinal-Deacon”, “Cardinal-Priest”, and “Cardinal-Bishop” are not indicative of the person being a deacon, priest, or bishop. They seem to be honorary titles which denote their role. They are all bishops, though.
A Cardinal-Deacon servings as “prefects in the various Curial offices” is Church-speak for the fact that they are the head of one of the main offices in the Vatican. Just as with any diocese, the Vatican has lots of different “departments” (known as a “congregations”) One such department deals with appointing bishops (the Congregation of Bishops). Another department deals with liturgical issues (the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Still another office deals with investigating who will be canonized as a saint (the Congregation for the Causes of Saints).
A Cardinal-Priest serves as most other bishops do: as bishop of a particular diocese. There’s Cardinal George in Chicago, Cardinal Wuerl in D.C., etc.
A Cardinal-Bishop seems to be a super special title bestowed by the Pope on the really important cardinals.
Does that make more sense? I’m trying to make sense of it myself at the same time. I’ve heard the titles before, but I never looked into what they meant, so I thank benedictgal for explaining it.
A cardinal technically just means the person is designated to vote for the next pope. A cardinal doesn’t “outrank” an archbishop. An archbishop doesn’t really outrank a bishop; he’s simply the bishop of an archdiocese.
Most cardinals are bishops, but not all. The late Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit priest and theologian, but never a bishop. Oftentimes, the Pope will bestow the title of Cardinal on such theologians once they are past 80 years old (and thus, not eligible to participate in the election of the pope). At the present, all the cardinals under 80 are also bishops, but it does not have to be that way.
From what Benedictgal described (and I never knew the distinction before, so I learned something here too), the titles “Cardinal-Deacon”, “Cardinal-Priest”, and “Cardinal-Bishop” are not indicative of the person being a deacon, priest, or bishop. They seem to be honorary titles which denote their role. They are all bishops, though.
A Cardinal-Deacon servings as “prefects in the various Curial offices” is Church-speak for the fact that they are the head of one of the main offices in the Vatican. Just as with any diocese, the Vatican has lots of different “departments” (known as a “congregations”) One such department deals with appointing bishops (the Congregation of Bishops). Another department deals with liturgical issues (the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Still another office deals with investigating who will be canonized as a saint (the Congregation for the Causes of Saints).
A Cardinal-Priest serves as most other bishops do: as bishop of a particular diocese. There’s Cardinal George in Chicago, Cardinal Wuerl in D.C., etc.
A Cardinal-Bishop seems to be a super special title bestowed by the Pope on the really important cardinals.
Does that make more sense? I’m trying to make sense of it myself at the same time.
I’ve heard the titles before, but I never looked into what they meant, so I thank benedictgal for explaining it.
S
Skeptic92
Guest
You’ve had a definition of Cardinal Bishops and Cardinal Priests, however Cardinal Deacons don’t always hold Curial offices, sometimes they are just honorary titles (with all the privileges of being a Cardinal, such as being eligible for election to the papacy and voting at conclave), one example of this is Bl John Henry Cardinal Newman, as the Holy Father wanted to make him a Cardinal, but Blessed Newman never wished to be a Bishop, and wanted to stay as a Parish Priest, was given the title of Cardinal Deacon, instead of being consecrated to the Episcopacy.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Wikipedia is usually correct about topics that many people care about but are not overly politicized.
To the OP: the posts above are right. Cardinals are not the next “rank” above bishops; in fact there are three living cardinals who are not bishops, and historically there have even been cardinals who were not priests.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
D
DarrinP
Guest
My understanding has always been that a Cardinal is simply someone who is “incardinated” to a particular office. The College of Cardinals at the Vatican are the ones who are most widely known and recognized by the world at large. And they are almost always chosen from the ranks of bishops. And, yes THEY, in modern times elect the Pope. But, again, that is just that particular group of cardinals. That’s not the actual definition of “cardinal”.
A cardinal or a person incardinated to a particular office can be a bishop, priest, deacon, or believe it or not…even a layperson, (however unlikely that may be) The Cardinals that you know from The Vatican are bishops who are incardinated to the See of Rome.(the office of the Pope) So, with that said, your question above in answered. Cardinal-Bishop is a bishop incardinated to a certain office. Cardinal-Priest is a priest incardinated to a certain office, and so on.
Don’t think of cardinals as only the guys in Rome who vote for the Pope. That’s too narrow a definition. (which I believe I read as the definition in a couple replies so far)
A cardinal or a person incardinated to a particular office can be a bishop, priest, deacon, or believe it or not…even a layperson, (however unlikely that may be) The Cardinals that you know from The Vatican are bishops who are incardinated to the See of Rome.(the office of the Pope) So, with that said, your question above in answered. Cardinal-Bishop is a bishop incardinated to a certain office. Cardinal-Priest is a priest incardinated to a certain office, and so on.
Don’t think of cardinals as only the guys in Rome who vote for the Pope. That’s too narrow a definition. (which I believe I read as the definition in a couple replies so far)
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Where exactly are you getting this broader definition from?
The function of Cardinals is clearly spelled out in the Code of Canon Law. Here’s a good summary from the Vatican website:
vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_documentazione/cardinali_documentazione_generale_en.html
D
DarrinP
Guest
Well, it would seem that I stand corrected. I know that I have read those very definitions sometime in the distant past, and haven’t thought much about it since. But, for the life of me I cannot find the source of the read now that I’m looking for it. I’d like to think I wouldn’t have taken to an untrusted or unapproved source, but it could have been.
Either way, thanks for the correction. I’ve read it all thoroughly now. I came across this blurb that seems to state that there is still a provision in place for a layman to become a cardinal, although all sources say that the last one was in 1899:
“An archbishop is usually the bishop of a major metropolitan archdiocese and may also be a cardinal. A cardinal is a member of the college of cardinals, and, according to current requirements, is usually a bishop. There is a regulation that a cardinal who is not already a bishop must be ordained to the episcopate, but this rule can be dispensed. So, with permission, it is possible for a layman or a priest to be a cardinal.”
(-taken from Quick Answers here on Catholic Answers)
“At various times there have been cardinals who had only received first tonsure and minor orders but not yet been ordained as deacons or priests. Though clerics, they were inaccurately called “lay cardinals” and were permitted to marry.”
(-and this from widipedia, which seems to match what was said on Catholic Answers.) Likely just MY misunderstanding. Thank you again. I certainly don’t want to pass bad information.
Either way, thanks for the correction. I’ve read it all thoroughly now. I came across this blurb that seems to state that there is still a provision in place for a layman to become a cardinal, although all sources say that the last one was in 1899:
“An archbishop is usually the bishop of a major metropolitan archdiocese and may also be a cardinal. A cardinal is a member of the college of cardinals, and, according to current requirements, is usually a bishop. There is a regulation that a cardinal who is not already a bishop must be ordained to the episcopate, but this rule can be dispensed. So, with permission, it is possible for a layman or a priest to be a cardinal.”
(-taken from Quick Answers here on Catholic Answers)
“At various times there have been cardinals who had only received first tonsure and minor orders but not yet been ordained as deacons or priests. Though clerics, they were inaccurately called “lay cardinals” and were permitted to marry.”
(-and this from widipedia, which seems to match what was said on Catholic Answers.) Likely just MY misunderstanding. Thank you again. I certainly don’t want to pass bad information.
- Status