cardinals

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Don’t retired cardinals have rights and priviledges that make them independent of the bishops in whose dioceses they may reside?

JKirk,
Here is what I found in the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 357 §1 When a Cardinal has taken possession of a suburbicarian Church or of a titular Church in Rome, he is to further the good of the diocese or church by counsel and patronage. However, he has no power of governance over it, and he should not for any reason interfere in matters concerning the administration of its goods, or its discipline, or the service of the church.

§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.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There have been lots of good answers to the question attacking it from different angles, but I thought I would just point out that the problem with trying to answer the question is that the question itself is not very apt. That’s not a dig at the OP, just a reflection on the reality of things. When we think of the hierarchy of the Church we like to think in terms of a single line rising up from tonsure to papacy, but the reality of things is that outside of precedence for processions this doesn’t really hold up in terms of authority/jurisdiction.

There are side tracks and parallel structures that make answering overly broad questions quite difficult. For instance, in general a bishop “ranks” higher than an abbot, but there are areas in which monks owe obedience to their abbot, even if the bishop would choose a different course. A priest serving as administrator of a diocese would be able to make decisions for that territory that another bishop would not be able to overrule simply by nature of his higher orders.

These sorts of things come out most clearly in the case of cardinals who sit on a track entirely separate from the ranking of orders. Reginald Cdl. Pole, for 18 years, had higher precedence than all the non-cardinal archbishops in the world, even though he was a layman. At the same time, however, this ceremonial precedence did not necessarily translate into any sort of personal authority over those prelates whom he outranked. When cardinals exercise jurisdiction over other prelates they do it not by means of their own authority but as functionaries of the pope. E.g., people have to listen to Cdl. Arinze’s official decrees on the liturgy not because he’s a cardinal and says so but because “the cardinal’s” official decrees are decrees of the CDW(-DS) which acts in the pope’s name. True, cardinals have certain exemptions like the canons pointed out above, but on the whole I would say the question could only be resolved by asking about a specific case and respect for which one wants to know who is “above” another.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

1. Cardinal Bishops -

A. The Cardinals who are Titular Bishops of Suburbicarian Sees of Rome. Specifically, the 6 Cardinal Bishops are:

(1) Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Albano;
(2)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Frascati;
(3)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Palestrina;
(4)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Porto-Santa Rufina;
(5)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Sabina-Poggio Mirteto
(6)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Velletri-Segni

[The Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals is elected by the Cardinal Bishops from among themselves; formerly, the most senior Cardinal Bishop became Dean, *ipso facto; that was changed, in 1965, to require election to the office. The Dean also becomes, ex officio, Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Ostia, in addition to whichever other Suburbicarian See (1 thru 6 above) which he holds.]

B. Any Oriental Patriarchs, Major or Minor, Eastern (edit for correction) who are Cardinals. They are sometimes referred to as Cardinal Patriarchs, although no such title formally exists. Cardinal-Patriarchs have no voting power in election of the Dean and Vice-Dean of the College; that right is vested solely in the 6 traditional Cardinal-Bishops.

1. Cardinal Priests

Those Cardinals who head Arch-Episcopal (or, more rarely, Episcopal) Sees geographically situated outside the Province of Rome and those Curial Cardinals who have opted into the presbyteral rank from the diaconal (see below). This order includes the majority of Cardinals.

1. Cardinal Deacons

Traditionally, these were those Cardinals who held offices in the Curia, (other than the six Curial officials noted above who are styled “Cardinal Bishop”). However, once a Cardinal Deacon has been in that office for 10 years, he can “opt” or transfer to a presbyteral title. (Code of Canon Law, Can. 350, para.60), despite still being in an active Curial role. Cardinal Deacons opt for the presbyteral order at the first consistory after their 10th anniversary as Cardinals.

If a Cardinal who has been a residential bishop is named to a position in the Roman Curia, he retains the presbyteral rank.

The Code of Canon Law prescribes that priests who are created cardinals are to be ordained bishops. However, several priests (often theologians whom the Pope has chosen to honor with the title) who were created Cardinals have requested and received a dispensation from episcopal ordination. Cardinal Tomas Spidlik, SJ, and Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, are examples - but I believe that they are not the only two.

The most informative source for information on the Cardinalate is Salvador Miranda`s site:

The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

As to the precedence of Cardinals versus Patriarchs - there is no “College of Patriarchs” and

Canon 58 (Eastern Code)

Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.

The phrase, “all bishops of any degree”, is inclusive of the cardinalate, which is itself an office and honorific, held chiefly by bishops, and is not itself an episcopal order.

Further, Cardinal-Patriarchs are not assigned any titular status with respect to the Churches of Rome.

The following example is a bit dated - primarily because I’m feeling lazy and cut and pasted it from an earlier thread - but I’ve added a bit to it to illustrate.

In practice, in a ecclesiastical procession at, for instance, St. Peter’s, in which HH Pope John Paul II, Bernard Cardinal Ratzinger, and and His Holiness Patriarch Stephenos II Cardinal Ghattas, were all present and participating, much would depend on the nature of the occasion.

If His Holiness Stephanos were participating in his capacity as a member of the College of Cardinals, he would have been preceded by then-Cardinal Ratzinger (although he would still hold a place of greater honor than Cardinal Ratzinger if he was named to that capacity before Ratzinger).

If His Holiness Stephanos was participating in his capacity as Patriach, he would immediately precede the Pope in procession. Hierarchical precedence is a function of the office and dignity which attend to one and, generally, the date of one’s appointment to that dignity. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger would have been inferior in precedential dignity to any of the 6 Patriarchs of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches sui iuris.

From the Latin Code

From the Latin Code:

Canon 438

The title of Patriarch or Primate gives a prerogative of honour, …

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

There is also a very definite order of precedence among the Patriarchs, which is why the Patriarchs of the Copts and the Melkites performed the roles that they did at the funeral of HH John Paul II (the Coptic Patriarch incensed the coffin, the Melkite Patriarch led the prayers of the Eastern and Oriental hierarchs). The position of precedence among the Catholic Patriarchs belongs firstly to the Patriarch of Alexandria (Copt) and secondly to the Patriarch of the Melkites, as the latter holds the title of Alexandria, in addition to that of Antioch.

Many years,

Neil

 

[johnnykins]

Cardinals ARE Bishops. They have more jurisdiction in certain areas and also more and different responsibilities. But the highest level of Holy Orders is Bishop.

Eh - not quite. Cardinal Dulles is NOT a bishop. Of historical note - Cardinal Mazarin was NOT a Bishop.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Neil,

I notice you grouped Latin Patriarchs in with the Orientals and Easterns. Do any of these patriarchates other than Venice still retain the title, and if so, does this grant precedence?

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Neil,

I notice you grouped Latin Patriarchs in with the Orientals and Easterns. Do any of these patriarchates other than Venice still retain the title, and if so, does this grant precedence?

Andreas,

Hello, my friend. That was a typo - should have read

Any Patriarchs, Major or Minor, Eastern or Oriental, who are Cardinals.

There are still Latin Patriarchates - following is from an old post, so names might not be current, but otherwise it is - except for a few things that I’ve noted.
Irish Melkite:

Canon 438 The title of Patriarch or Primate gives a prerogative of honour, but in the Latin Church does not carry with it any power of governance, except in certain matters where an apostolic privilege or approved custom establishes otherwise.

In the Latin Church, there are presently 4 Patriarchs,-] other than the Pope as Patriarch of the West/-]. There is only a single Major Latin Catholic Patriarch -](other than the Pope in his capacity as Patriarch of the West)/-]. His position is the only extant Latin Catholic Patriarchate of the Orient. His Patriarchal title is largely (but not entirely) ceremonial. (His exercise of authority is in his archepiscopal capacity.) The incumbent is:

His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, Patriarch of Jerusalem for the Latin Catholics & Archbishop of Jerusalem of the Latins

Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchs of the West

There are 3. For each of them, the title is honorific or ceremonial (although only 1 of the 3 is actually styled ad honorem). The titles carry with them no jurisdictional authority; those who hold the seats derive that authority from their archepiscopal roles. The incumbents (and a bit of the history of each title) are:

His Eminence José da Cruz Cardinal Policarpo, Patriarch & Archbishop of Lisbon

The Patriarchal title currently held by the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon was created in response to secular, rather than religious, need. The Portuguese King John asked for (and was granted) it as a condition of supplying troops to assist in fighting the Turks - so, I guess he can be said to have bartered for it, rather than “bought” it. He wanted a patriarch for Portugal because Spain had one (more about that below). The position originally was attached to the King’s chapel and was separate from the Archbishopric of Lisbon; the churches and other religious institutions of the city were divided between the two. That situation changed about 25 years later when Pope Benedict XIV merged the 2 positions.

His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Scola, Patriarch & Archbishop of Venice

Frequently, people presume that the Venetian Patriarchate exists because the See traces its origins to Saint Mark. Actually, its history isn’t much more noble than that of Lisbon. In the early centuries, it wasn’t uncommon that the title “Patriarch” was loosely used to honor bishops who were thought of highly or who ruled Sees that had a particularly venerable history. In one northern Italian diocese, a bishop began to take the title seriously and decided that he and his jurisdiction should be subject to neither Rome nor Constantinople. So, for about 150 years, from the mid-6th century to around 700 AD, the Church was plagued by a schism in that region, which ultimately involved two dioceses. For some bizarre reason, even after the schism ended, Rome tolerated continued use of the title. Ultimately, the 2 dioceses came to be merged into the See of Udine, part of the Venetian Republic, and in 1750 (or thereabouts), Pope Benedict XIV declared the title changed to Patriarch of Venice.

His Excellency, The Most Reverend Filipe Neri António Sebastião do Rosário Ferrão, Patriarch ad honorem of the East Indies & Archbishop of Goa & Daman

This patriarchate was actually created late. Leo XIII established it around 1885, reportedly as a balance to that of the West Indies (see below). This was another instance of balancing Spanish and Portuguese sensitivities. There has been speculation that when the See is next vacated, the title will not be granted to the successor archbishop and the patriarchate will be suppressed de facto, if not de jure. (Note - didn’t happen )

The Patriarch ad honorem of the West Indies sede vacante]

The fourth and only other Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchate of the West was erected in the Spanish hierarchy in the early 16th century, as a consequence of Columbus’ discovery of America. It anticipated that the patriarch would reign over it, which never happened. The position was ultimately joined with a Spanish military hierarchical post and never exercised any jurisdiction. This patriarchate has been vacant since 1946 and it is generally considered to be suppressed, de facto, though not de jure.

(cont)

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchates of the Orient

These Patriarchates have been formally suppressed. It is inconcievable that these jurisdictions would be re-erected; ultimately, they were suppressed in recognition of the affrontery attached to the appointment of Latin Patriarchs to traditional Oriental Patriarchates - reminiscent of the period in which unity was synonymous with Latinization.

The Patriarch of Constantinople for the Latin Catholics

The patriarchate was canonically erected in 1204. It actually had jurisdictional authority for a time, encompassing a couple dozen archdioceses and about 60 suffragn dioceses. After the Latins lost control of the city in 1261, the Patriarchs resided variously in Greece or at Rome and were allowed to be represented in Constantinople only by priests designated as patriarchal vicars. Four hundred years passed before permission was granted for a resident bishop as the Patriarch’s vicar. For all practical purposes, the office was ultimately suppressed in 1772 and has since existed solely as a titular see.

The Patriarch of Alexandria for the Latin Catholics

This See was established in 1215, although the earliest documentation of an appointment to it is of a Patriarch Athanasius in 1219, of whom nothing else is known. The next recorded name is that of a Dominican named Giles, enthroned in 1310. After the mid-16th century, when Latins ceased to have any influence in the Byzantine Empire, it was reduced to a titular See. I believe that Archbishop Juan Portugal de la Puebla, appointed 4 March 1771, who reposed on 16 October 1781, was the last hierarch who held the title.

The Patriarch of Antioch for the Latin Catholics

The first to hold the title was Bernard, appointed in 1100. Cristiano (Christian) Opizo, OP, of thrice-blessed memory, was the last incumbent. Dominicans believe, but cannot confirm with certainty, that he was “Father Christian”, a documented contemporary of St. Domenic. He likely succeeded to the See in 1247, the year of his predecessor’s repose. A contemporaneous account reports that when the city was overrun in 1268 by the Tartars, Patriarch Cristiano donned his full pontifical garb and prostrated himself in prayer at the cathedral’s main altar. He was joined by 4 fellow Dominicans, also vested; they waited there for the invaders and were martyred. After that date, Rome continued to appoint Patriarchs to the See, but none of them was able to take possession of it and, by the end of the 14th century, it was reduced to titular status.

Many years,

Neil

 

[hamburglar]

Although I don’t think it will happen anytime soon, can’t a lay person become the pope?

 

[chicago]

Although I don’t think it will happen anytime soon, can’t a lay person become the pope?

As long as he’s male, sure, They’d just have to ordain him first!

 

[Aramis]

As long as he’s male, sure, They’d just have to ordain him first!

And second and third as well… Deacon, Priest, and then Bishop of Rome, and then install him formally as pope.

 

[Mimi]

As long as he’s male, sure, They’d just have to ordain him first!

This very thing came up in a discussion group we had where the topic was apologetics. Our priest stated that a cardinal would not have to necessarily be ordained first; someone like Mother Theresa could conceivably become appointed a Cardinal.

I didn’t say anything bc I’d never researched it, but thought ???

I thought I’d check that out. I will also Ask an Apologist.

Mimi

 

[chicago]

The electors of pope were, in ancient times, the clergy of Rome. The cardinal electors are their titular successsors. So, yes, a cardinal must be at least a deacon, if not a priest, and definitely a man.

 

[Aramis]

The electors of pope were, in ancient times, the clergy of Rome. The cardinal electors are their titular successsors. So, yes, a cardinal must be at least a deacon, if not a priest, and definitely a man.

Except that some have been “merely” lay theologians of great impact, or laymen with lifelong service. These 80+ YO cardinals don’t get a vote, just the title.

 

[chicago]

Except that some have been “merely” lay theologians of great impact, or laymen with lifelong service. These 80+ YO cardinals don’t get a vote, just the title.

They would still be made a titular member of the Roman clergy, however, no?

I’m unfamiliar with the “lay” theologians who were elevated to cardinal. (I know of the clerical ones, obviously.) Could you name some of them, kindly?

 

[Aramis]

They would still be made a titular member of the Roman clergy, however, no?

I’m unfamiliar with the “lay” theologians who were elevated to cardinal. (I know of the clerical ones, obviously.) Could you name some of them, kindly?

Actually, a Vatican Statesman, and not even 80 when elevated!

He was religious, and in seminary, but no mention is made in either source of his ordination.

2. Consalvi, Ercole

former Secretary of State of Apostolic Secretariat
former Prefect of Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith
Born: 1757.06.08 (Italy)
Created Cardinal: 1800.08.11
Died: 1824.01.24 († 66)

Secretary of State of Apostolic Secretariat (1800.08.11 – 1806.06.17)
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Agata de’ Goti (1800.10.20 – 1817.07.28)
Librarian of Vatican Apostolic Library (1801.12.19 – 1806.06.17)
Pro-Prefect of Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (1802 – 1805.09.06)
Prefect of Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (1805.09.06 – 1809?)
Librarian of Vatican Apostolic Library (1814.05.17 – 1823.09.20)
Secretary of State of Apostolic Secretariat (1814.05.19 – 1824.01.24)
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria ad Martyres (1817.07.28 – 1824.01.24)
Camerlengo of Sacred College of Cardinals (1820 – 1821)
Prefect of Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith (1824.01.13 – 1824.01.24)

also see newadvent.org/cathen/04262a.htm
and 1911encyclopedia.org/Ercole_Consalvi
and 1911encyclopedia.org/Prelate

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

This very thing came up in a discussion group we had where the topic was apologetics. Our priest stated that a cardinal would not have to necessarily be ordained first; someone like Mother Theresa could conceivably become appointed a Cardinal.

I didn’t say anything bc I’d never researched it, but thought ???

I thought I’d check that out. I will also Ask an Apologist.

Mimi

Generally and theoretically, a cardinal would never have to be ordained whatsoever, but according to the current prescriptions of law, one must be in at least presbyteral orders before elevation to the college and can only be dispensed from the obligation to receive episcopal orders by decision of the pope.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Actually, a Vatican Statesman, and not even 80 when elevated!

He was religious, and in seminary, but no mention is made in either source of his ordination.

also see newadvent.org/cathen/04262a.htm
and 1911encyclopedia.org/Ercole_Consalvi
and 1911encyclopedia.org/Prelate

Enrico Cardinal Consalvi, who is generally deemed to have been among the (if not the) greatest statesmen ever to have served the Vatican, was ordained to the subdiaconate and diaconate, but never to the presbyterate. Consalvi was one of the 13 so-called “black cardinals”, forbidden by Napolean to vest in their red garb because they defied his demands that they be present at his marriage to Marie Louisa of Austria.

See: Enrico Consalvi at Salvatore Miranda’s site.

Many years,

Neil