Cardinals who are not bishops

[twf]

I know that Cardinals have universal faculties. Normally they can celebrate mass, hear confessions, and confirm anywhere in the world. In those rare cases where a priest named Cardinal asks not to be consecrated a bishop, what if any impact does this have? Does he still have universal faculties- even to confirm?

 

[FrDavid96]

I know that Cardinals have universal faculties. Normally they can celebrate mass, hear confessions, and confirm anywhere in the world. In those rare cases where a priest named Cardinal asks not to be consecrated a bishop, what if any impact does this have? Does he still have universal faculties- even to confirm?

To start, why do you think the Cardinals have universal faculties to confirm? They don’t. The only universal faculties that they have specifically as Cardinals is for confessions.

Any bishop has the faculties to confirm his own subjects, even outside of his own territory. Canon 886.2 requires only “presumed consent” for him to confirm non-subjects outside his own territory. Whether he is a Cardinal or not, that doesn’t change.

A Cardinal who is a presbyter does not have any “universal faculties.” He is still a presbyter and has only those faculties granted to him by his own Ordinary (or special ones granted by the Pope, which would be done on a individual basis). The only exception is that Cardinals have the universal faculty of hearing confessions by the law itself (c. 967).

 

[commenter]

To start, why do you think the Cardinals have universal faculties to confirm? They don’t. The only universal faculties that they have specifically as Cardinals is for confessions.

Any bishop has the faculties to confirm his own subjects, even outside of his own territory. Canon 886.2 requires only “presumed consent” for him to confirm non-subjects outside his own territory. Whether he is a Cardinal or not, that doesn’t change.

A Cardinal who is a presbyter does not have any “universal faculties.” He is still a presbyter and has only those faculties granted to him by his own Ordinary (or special ones granted by the Pope, which would be done on a individual basis). The only exception is that Cardinals have the universal faculty of hearing confessions by the law itself (c. 967).

I did not know that cardinals, who are priests, had the universal faculty of hearing confessions. Would they not have the universal faculty of saying Mass anywhere, also?
What about cardinals who are not priests? Would they have any kind of faculties specific to being a cardinal?
I believe there used to be a few cardinals who were in “minor orders”, maybe up to around 1900. I don’t know if current canon law allows for that situation now, since “minor orders” were I think abolished in the West.

 

[twf]

To start, why do you think the Cardinals have universal faculties to confirm? They don’t. The only universal faculties that they have specifically as Cardinals is for confessions.

Any bishop has the faculties to confirm his own subjects, even outside of his own territory. Canon 886.2 requires only “presumed consent” for him to confirm non-subjects outside his own territory. Whether he is a Cardinal or not, that doesn’t change.

A Cardinal who is a presbyter does not have any “universal faculties.” He is still a presbyter and has only those faculties granted to him by his own Ordinary (or special ones granted by the Pope, which would be done on a individual basis). The only exception is that Cardinals have the universal faculty of hearing confessions by the law itself (c. 967).

Thank you Father. I suppose I was just mistaken about confirmation. They do have universal faculties to celebrate mass in any diocese though, no? (Just like a metropolitan can celebrate mass in any parish in the province without explicit permission from the local ordinary).

 

[The_Serpent]

Are there any examples of Cardinals that weren’t Bishops in Church History? The point of the Cardinals is to choose the New Pope, so shouldn’t they all be Bishops? Since the choice of successor originally rested in the Apostles (who were all consecrated Bishops); then later in their successors.

 

[TheDoctor]

Are there any examples of Cardinals that weren’t Bishops in Church History? The point of the Cardinals is to choose the New Pope, so shouldn’t they all be Bishops? Since the choice of successor originally rested in the Apostles (who were all consecrated Bishops); then later in their successors.

Yes, there appear to have been throughout until the rules were changed about 50 years ago.I knew Cardinal Dulles was one so did a quick search:
papam.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/non-bishop-cardinals-i-e-the-current-cardinals-who-are-not-bishops/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_%28Catholicism%29

 

[Brendan]

The point of the Cardinals is to choose the New Pope, so shouldn’t they all be Bishops?

The Cardinals do the voting, that is correct. But they are under no obligation to choose a fellow Cardinal. The only requirement is that the person they elect be a Catholic male.

There are provisions in Church law that if the person elected by the Cardinals is not a bishop, then he is to be Ordained bishop immediately after he accepts the position.

He becomes Pope when he is Ordained.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I know that Cardinals have universal faculties. Normally they can celebrate mass, hear confessions, and confirm anywhere in the world. In those rare cases where a priest named Cardinal asks not to be consecrated a bishop, what if any impact does this have? Does he still have universal faculties- even to confirm?

I am very impressed. You are remembering, in part, things which pre-date the 1983 code and which were codified in Latin. I am curious: Do you know of what you asking from a direct knowledge of the Latin texts?

For example, relative to Confirmation, you are remembering the provision that you would indeed find in the 1917 code; I can cite, in English, from the Rituale Romanum of 1964, Part III, the General Instructions:
4. The ordinary minister of confirmation is the bishop alone. The extraordinary minister is a priest to whom this faculty has been granted, either by common law or by a special indult of the Holy See. Those who enjoy this faculty by law, besides cardinals of the holy Roman Church, are: an abbot or prelate nullius, and a Vicar and a Prefect Apostolic, who, however, can validly use this privilege only within their own boundaries or territory and only as long as they are in office. A priest of the Latin rite, who possesses this faculty by virtue of an indult, can confer confirmation validly only on the faithful of his own rite, unless the indult expressly provides otherwise. Priests of the Oriental rite have the faculty or privilege of conferring confirmation along with baptism to infants who belong to their own rite; but it is gravely unlawful for them to administer it to infants of the Latin rite.
(What of this is retained would be formulated differently today, of course, in light of the ecclesiology of Vatican II, the effects of which continue to unfold and alter praxis, even to the present instant.)

There were a variety of privileges, which you are evoking, which were enumerated in the Pio-Benedictine Code. Concerning the Cardinals, it was a very long canon and, as I recall, it should be canon 239 or right thereabout, give or take a few canons and presuming my memory still reasonably serves. (The joy of being retired allows me to ask you to ask one of the activist canonists on this forum to assist as I don’t think the Holy See has added this code to its website…if the text were to exist as an electronic document at all. I no longer have the physical text at arm’s length.)

It is also important to remember the second paragraph of Canon 357 in the current code:
§2. Cardinals living outside Rome and outside their own diocese, are exempt in what concerns their person from the power of governance of the Bishop of the diocese in which they are residing.
And the caveat that the various privileges and prerogatives of the Cardinals today are largely no longer enumerated and codified in the 1983 code in the way they were in the 1917 code.

The Cardinals who have declined episcopal ordination present a most interesting subset for a professor of liturgy to engage his students with…and I will leave my comment there.

 

[dans0622]

I am very impressed. You are remembering, in part, things which pre-date the 1983 code…

There were a variety of privileges, which you are evoking, which were enumerated in the Pio-Benedictine Code. Concerning the Cardinals, it was a very long canon and, as I recall, it should be canon 239 or right thereabout, …

And the caveat that the various privileges and prerogatives of the Cardinals today are largely no longer enumerated and codified in the 1983 code in the way they were in the 1917 code.

The Cardinals who have declined episcopal ordination present a most interesting subset for a professor of liturgy to engage his students with…and I will leave my comment there.

And I am equally impressed that you know the canon from the 1917 Code. Indeed, it was c. 239, paragraph 1, n. 23 which said Cardinals could administer Confirmation.

Once John XXIII said that all Cardinals were to be ordained (consecrated) bishops, and there were other changes in canon law many of the old faculties were thought to be obsolete. The 1983 Code Commission didn’t think there was a reason to have a list like in the old law: whatever privileges there might be should be addressed in particular law.

You may be interested to know that a much shorter list of “faculties and privileges” for Cardinals was issued on March 18, 1999, in the form of a Papal “rescript” to the Secretary of State. I don’t think it made its way into the AAS but was published in *Notitiae *(1999, pp. 339-342) . A translation was published in the June 1999 edition of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland Newsletter.

The “faculties/privileges” concern: indulgences, private chapels, dress, dedications/blessings, preaching, remitting penalties, and a few other topics.

I’ll talk about the issue of the thread in the next post.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

I know that Cardinals have universal faculties. Normally they can celebrate mass, hear confessions, and confirm anywhere in the world. In those rare cases where a priest named Cardinal asks not to be consecrated a bishop, what if any impact does this have? Does he still have universal faculties- even to confirm?

All Cardinals (even if not possessing the episcopal character) do have a limited faculty to Confirm: it pertains only to their “household” (those who are “permanently” in the “service” of the Cardinal himself). This faculty is contained in article 4 of the 1999 list of privileges/faculties (see my previous post for citations).

That would leave a pretty small number of people who could ever be confirmed by a “presbyteral cardinal” but there you have it.

Dan

 

[JimmyG88]

I don’t think Cardinal Newman was a Bishop. (I may be wrong)

 

[Brendan]

‘Lay’ in what sense? All of the non-ordained Cardinals that I am familiar with were tonsured to one of the minor orders.

Thus they were clergy.

Do you have an example of a Cardinal who was not in the clerical state?

 

[Marysann]

Don Ruggero, my son was a student at Fordham University at the time that Fr. Avery Dulles was appointed a Cardinal. As Fr. Dulles was living at Fordham, his appointment was quite a big deal there. If I remember correctly, Cardinal Dulles did not want to be ordained at bishop because at his advanced age he did not feel that he could fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the episcopate. He was already over 80, and would not be an elector in the next conclave. He did receive certain honors when he returned to Fordham. His Jesuit brothers gave him a red hat, a cap from the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team, and a reserved parking place in front of the Jesuit residence where he lived. We were all proud that he was honored by Pope Benedict by his appointment as a Cardinal…

 

[twf]

I am very impressed. You are remembering, in part, things which pre-date the 1983 code and which were codified in Latin. I am curious: Do you know of what you asking from a direct knowledge of the Latin texts?

For example, relative to Confirmation, you are remembering the provision that you would indeed find in the 1917 code; I can cite, in English, from the Rituale Romanum of 1964, Part III, the General Instructions:
4. The ordinary minister of confirmation is the bishop alone. The extraordinary minister is a priest to whom this faculty has been granted, either by common law or by a special indult of the Holy See. Those who enjoy this faculty by law, besides cardinals of the holy Roman Church, are: an abbot or prelate nullius, and a Vicar and a Prefect Apostolic, who, however, can validly use this privilege only within their own boundaries or territory and only as long as they are in office. A priest of the Latin rite, who possesses this faculty by virtue of an indult, can confer confirmation validly only on the faithful of his own rite, unless the indult expressly provides otherwise. Priests of the Oriental rite have the faculty or privilege of conferring confirmation along with baptism to infants who belong to their own rite; but it is gravely unlawful for them to administer it to infants of the Latin rite.
(What of this is retained would be formulated differently today, of course, in light of the ecclesiology of Vatican II, the effects of which continue to unfold and alter praxis, even to the present instant.)

There were a variety of privileges, which you are evoking, which were enumerated in the Pio-Benedictine Code. Concerning the Cardinals, it was a very long canon and, as I recall, it should be canon 239 or right thereabout, give or take a few canons and presuming my memory still reasonably serves. (The joy of being retired allows me to ask you to ask one of the activist canonists on this forum to assist as I don’t think the Holy See has added this code to its website…if the text were to exist as an electronic document at all. I no longer have the physical text at arm’s length.)

It is also important to remember the second paragraph of Canon 357 in the current code:
§2. Cardinals living outside Rome and outside their own diocese, are exempt in what concerns their person from the power of governance of the Bishop of the diocese in which they are residing.
And the caveat that the various privileges and prerogatives of the Cardinals today are largely no longer enumerated and codified in the 1983 code in the way they were in the 1917 code.

The Cardinals who have declined episcopal ordination present a most interesting subset for a professor of liturgy to engage his students with…and I will leave my comment there.

I’m sorry to disappoint Father, but I am not remembering the Latin text of the previous code. I honestly don’t know where I picked it up, but I was quite certain that cardinals had universal faculties to confirm. Thank you very much for the additional information and context!

 

[FrDavid96]

I did not know that cardinals, who are priests, had the universal faculty of hearing confessions. Would they not have the universal faculty of saying Mass anywhere, also?
What about cardinals who are not priests? Would they have any kind of faculties specific to being a cardinal?
I believe there used to be a few cardinals who were in “minor orders”, maybe up to around 1900. I don’t know if current canon law allows for that situation now, since “minor orders” were I think abolished in the West.

Thank you Father. I suppose I was just mistaken about confirmation. They do have universal faculties to celebrate mass in any diocese though, no? (Just like a metropolitan can celebrate mass in any parish in the province without explicit permission from the local ordinary).

Priests do not need local faculties (as such) to celebrate Mass. As long as the priest has general faculties from his own Ordinary, he can celebrate Mass anywhere when he travels (if he moves there, or if he does so on a regular basis, he might need to contact the local Ordinary).

When a priest travels he only needs to present a letter from his own Ordinary stating that he is a priest (in good standing), and only if he is unknown to the host pastor. Canon 903.

It’s no different for Cardinals–except for the practical aspect of things, that in today’s world, it’s unlikely for a Cardinal to visit a parish without the local pastor already knowing that he is legitimate.

Therefore, a Cardinal doesn’t need to have faculties (as such) to celebrate Mass when he travels, because he already has those faculties by virtue of the fact that he’s a priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m sorry to disappoint Father, but I am not remembering the Latin text of the previous code. I honestly don’t know where I picked it up, but I was quite certain that cardinals had universal faculties to confirm. Thank you very much for the additional information and context!

Remember that the Code presumes that a Cardinal will be a bishop.*

A bishop already has universal faculties to confirm unless the local ordinary specifically prohibits it. Again, see canon 886. The canon doesn’t use those words, but the practical effect is the same.

So, in a sense, there’s no need for the code to give universal faculties to confirm to Cardinals. There’s no need to give something which is already there.

The only time this would become relevant would be if a visiting Cardinal wanted to confirm, but the local bishop (for some reason) expressly prohibited him from doing so.

This might sound obscure, but it happened a few years ago when a certain Archbishop on the US West Coast made a public statement that a certain retired Cardinal would no longer be engaged in public ministry in that Archdiocese**. In that case, the canonical requirement of “presumed consent” would not apply.

---

• yes, we all know there can be exceptions.

** no, I won’t mention names, and I would ask anyone responding to please refrain from posting any proper names of persons or places. The events were public but let’s respect the persons by not mentioning their names please.

 

[twf]

Remember that the Code presumes that a Cardinal will be a bishop.*

A bishop already has universal faculties to confirm unless the local ordinary specifically prohibits it. Again, see canon 886. The canon doesn’t use those words, but the practical effect is the same.

So, in a sense, there’s no need for the code to give universal faculties to confirm to Cardinals. There’s no need to give something which is already there.

The only time this would become relevant would be if a visiting Cardinal wanted to confirm, but the local bishop (for some reason) expressly prohibited him from doing so.

This might sound obscure, but it happened a few years ago when a certain Archbishop on the US West Coast made a public statement that a certain retired Cardinal would no longer be engaged in public ministry in that Archdiocese**. In that case, the canonical requirement of “presumed consent” would not apply.

---

• yes, we all know there can be exceptions.

** no, I won’t mention names, and I would ask anyone responding to please refrain from posting any proper names of persons or places. The events were public but let’s respect the persons by not mentioning their names please.

I remember that particular case now…and that has jogged another memory. I seem to think that it was in that context that I read somewhere that said retired cardinal could technically still confirm against the will of said archbishop…by virtue of universal faculties as a cardinal. I guess my source (and I don’t recall what it was) was simply wrong.

 

[JimmyG88]

Of course we don’t actually know who all the Cardinals are or were. Some were secret

 

[FrDavid96]

I remember that particular case now…and that has jogged another memory. I seem to think that it was in that context that I read somewhere that said retired cardinal could technically still confirm against the will of said archbishop…by virtue of universal faculties as a cardinal. I guess my source (and I don’t recall what it was) was simply wrong.

Before 1983, that was indeed the case.

Even today, the Confirmation would still be valid, but it would not be licit.

If the source said “by virtue of universal faculties as a Cardinal” then the source would be incorrect; the reason being that the laws granting Cardinals universal faculties to confirm no longer exist. However, if it was “by virtue of his episcopal ordination” the source would be right. That is, with regard to being licit. For validity, only episcopal ordination is necessary.

Then again, that brings up the (almost entirely academic) question of “to what degree does jurisdiction affect validity of Confirmation?” As far as I know, it’s still a bit of an open question in theology as to whether or not jurisdiction affects the validity of Confirmation. Personally, I lean towards saying that it does not. There is no question that a presbyter needs either jurisdiction or faculties to validly confirm, but for bishops it might be an open question at this point.

 

[InThePew]

‘Lay’ in what sense? All of the non-ordained Cardinals that I am familiar with were tonsured to one of the minor orders.

Thus they were clergy.

Do you have an example of a Cardinal who was not in the clerical state?

Luis de Borbón, son of King Felipe V of Spain, who was eight years old at his creation on 19 December 1735 aged 8 years 147 days. This was however subsequent to his ordination as Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spain on 9 September 1735!