Catholic FAQ


We were unable to reach our goal for the summer but we have reached 98%
Please consider donating if you can and keep us in your prayers.


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Feb 7, '13, 5:13 pm
bitznbitez's Avatar
bitznbitez bitznbitez is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2012
Posts: 624
Religion: Catholic
Default Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

On the west coast is a situation where a former archbishop, now cardinal, has been relieved of his public and administrative duties by his successor archbishop. I'll refrain from mentioning names so as to not make it personal. There is a big article about this in our diocesean newspaper.

My question is on the hierarchy. I always thought a cardinal outranked a archbishop. How does an archbishop silence a cardinal. It makes no sense to me, I would think that would have to come from above the cardinal.

Can anyone explain this to me ?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Feb 7, '13, 5:23 pm
SuscipeMeDomine SuscipeMeDomine is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2007
Posts: 4,812
Religion: Catholic, Obl.OSB
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

The cardinal involved is retired, while the archbishop is the ordinary of the archdiocese. It would have been a different situation if the cardinal was still active.

The cardinal still has his Vatican appointments. Apparently the main difference is that he won't be doing confirmations in the archdiocese.

Whispers in the Loggia explained things this way:
While a sitting archbishop may make any request he wishes on the extent of his cardinal-predecessor's role and public presence, Gomez's announcement on Mahony technically has no force. By the provisions of canon law, the universal faculties granted every member of the College, or any limitation of them in specific instances, rest solely within the competence of the Holy See. Ergo, barring an explicit papal move restricting his de iure perks, Mahony retains his seat in a Conclave to elect the next Pope until his 80th birthday in 2016, and all the other prerogatives that come with the "red hat" for life.

Likewise, Curry's departure as regional bishop for Santa Barbara has no legal impact on his standing in active ministry only the 70 year-old prelate's resignation submitted to Rome, and its acceptance by the Pope, can officially end his tenure as an auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles.

Gomez being Gomez, however, it is distinctly unlikely that either of tonight's moves were taken lacking some sort of consultation with the Vatican, whether directly or by means of the Nunciature in Washington. Given that sense, their public release would thus signal an implicit Roman green-light.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Feb 7, '13, 5:31 pm
Rolltide's Avatar
Rolltide Rolltide is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2006
Posts: 4,287
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

A cardinal is NOT higher in rank than an archbishop. He's not "higher" in rank than anyone. It's an honorary title that comes with no rank, although it usually comes with the privilege of electing the next pope (if they're under 80 years old). There have even been cardinals in the past that were laymen (although technically they were given "first tonsure", and made part of the minor orders). Father Avery Dulles was a Jesuit priest and theologian in the US who was elevated to cardinal in 2001, and he wasn't even a bishop.
__________________
See Tide.
See Tide Roll.
Roll. Tide. Roll.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Feb 7, '13, 6:33 pm
PaulfromIowa PaulfromIowa is online now
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2012
Posts: 2,594
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Archbishop Gomez, as the Archbishop of LA, has authority over all the priests of his diocese, including the auxiliary bishops and any retired bishops. The fact that the retired archbishop is a Cardinal does not change this.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Feb 7, '13, 8:37 pm
bitznbitez's Avatar
bitznbitez bitznbitez is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2012
Posts: 624
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulfromIowa View Post
Archbishop Gomez, as the Archbishop of LA, has authority over all the priests of his diocese, including the auxiliary bishops and any retired bishops. The fact that the retired archbishop is a Cardinal does not change this.
That was kinda what it sounded like from the article but since it didn't jive with my ranking theory I thought I'd ask.

Thanks for the confirmation.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Feb 7, '13, 11:31 pm
JReducation's Avatar
JReducation JReducation is offline
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2007
Posts: 20,168
Religion: CATHOLIC
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolltide View Post
A cardinal is NOT higher in rank than an archbishop. He's not "higher" in rank than anyone. It's an honorary title that comes with no rank, although it usually comes with the privilege of electing the next pope (if they're under 80 years old). There have even been cardinals in the past that were laymen (although technically they were given "first tonsure", and made part of the minor orders). Father Avery Dulles was a Jesuit priest and theologian in the US who was elevated to cardinal in 2001, and he wasn't even a bishop.
Whoah!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slow down here. When we use the word "honorary" it does not mean the same as getting an honorary doctorate from University X. The term is used to mean that being named a cardinal is an honor.

In the past cardinals were laymen, deacons, priests and bishops. Today, they must be clerics: deacons, priests and bishops. The Code of 1983 does not allow for laymen to be named cardinals.

There have been some famous cardinals that were not bishops such as Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal John Henry Newman. To say that "he wasn't even a bishop" is quite offensive, because of its dismissive tone. We have to be very careful when we write to keep in mind that the reader cannot hear our tone of voice. Yes, these men were not bishops.

Having said this, being named a cardinal does bring with it rights and duties that other bishops do not have. This is not a mere honor. It is an honor to be named a cardinal, but it's not something that just looks pretty in someone's name. Cardinal Dulles had rights and duties that bishops did not have. To the best of my knowledge, he never voted in a conclave. But he voted on other significant issues.

Cardinals have universal jurisdiction. A cardinal does not have to ask for faculties to celebrate the sacraments in any diocese around the world.

A cardinal is a prince of the Church. Whether he is a layman or a cleric, the Church commands that he be treated as what he is, royalty.

Cardinals do not have the "privilege" of electing the pope. They have a moral duty to do so. During the period between the death of one pope and the election of his successors, they run the Church.

Only cardinals can participate in the process of canonization. While there are many theologians involved, canon lawyers, historians and other experts, only cardinals are allowed to decide if the person in question has lived a life of extraordinary Christian virtue. After the case has been argued and the defender of the faith rests, meaning that he cannot find any reason that the person should not be nominated for canonization, the process goes no further unless the cardinals appointed to the process review and sign the recommendation. No one else has this right. Only the pope can overrule them.

Every cardinal has the right to have his own church in the City of Rome. This is not a privilege, it is a moral right. In other words, it is considered justice.

The difference between a cardinal and an archbishop has to do with jurisdiction.

An archbishop is the bishop of an archdiocese. He is no different from any other bishop. His diocese is different. An archdiocese is a metropolitan see. This means that it is the center of a Catholic Province. In the State of California, because of the size of the state and the large number of Catholics, there are two provinces. There are two archdioceses: San Francisco and Los Angeles.

When a cardinal is assigned to be the ordinary of a diocese, he is always assigned to an archdiocese. So we say that Cardinal N is the archbishop of . . .

For example, we say that Cardinal Sean is the archbishop of Boston. Cardinal Dalton, is the archbishop of New York and so forth. When these men retire, they cease to be the archbishop, because they no longer hold the post. They never cease to be princess of the Church with all of the rights and duties that go along with the title.

Imagine England. Right now Prince Charles is Prince of Whales. If he were to resign, he ceases to be Prince of Whales. However, he does not cease to be a prince, nor does he cease to be the hair apparent to the throne unless he abdicates. The title, Prince of Whales passes on to his son, but the father remains the heir apparent.

The same happens in the Church. A cardinal retires or is removed form his post, he ceases to exercise that post. He does not cease to be a prince, nor does he lose the rights that come with being a prince or is he relieved of the duties that come with the title.

Only the pope can relieve a cardinal of his rights and duties. The archbishop of a diocese in which a cardinal resides can only restrict the cardinal with the approval of the Holy See.

The cardinal is not higher than the archbishop. The archbishop is the man at the top of the archdiocese. He is the apostle who runs that church that we call a diocese, not the cardinal who resides in his diocese. However, the cardinal remains a prince and the archbishop must treat him as a prince. The only person who can restrict a prince is the monarch, even when the prince has no legal authority. A retired archbishop, whether he's a cardinal or not, has no authority in the affairs of a diocese where he lives or the one that he ran once upon a time.
__________________
Fraternally,

Brother JR, FFV

"Forget not love."


How long have I waited . . .
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Feb 8, '13, 1:14 am
Filii Dei's Avatar
Filii Dei Filii Dei is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2011
Posts: 978
Religion: Latin Church, Roman Rite
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by JReducation View Post
Imagine England. Right now Prince Charles is Prince of Whales. If he were to resign, he ceases to be Prince of Whales. However, he does not cease to be a prince, nor does he cease to be the hair apparent to the throne unless he abdicates. The title, Prince of Whales passes on to his son, but the father remains the heir apparent.
__________________
Orthodoksia et traditio.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Feb 8, '13, 6:47 am
paperwight66 paperwight66 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 29, 2010
Posts: 1,738
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filii Dei View Post


You beat me to it!

Mind you, given the Prince of Wales's interest in the environment etc. I suppose he might quite like the extra title.

(Sorry about the teasing, Bro JR, but to a Brit the typo stands out, rather!)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Feb 8, '13, 6:50 am
dans0622 dans0622 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2008
Posts: 1,381
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuscipeMeDomine View Post
...

Whispers in the Loggia explained things this way:
... By the provisions of canon law, the universal faculties granted every member of the College, or any limitation of them in specific instances, rest solely within the competence of the Holy See. Ergo, barring an explicit papal move restricting his de iure perks, Mahony retains his seat in a Conclave to elect the next Pope until his 80th birthday in 2016, and all the other prerogatives that come with the "red hat" for life.

...
I don't know what "provisions of canon law" or "universal faculties" he is talking about, other than the faculty to hear Confessions (c. 967) and some rather obscure/private privileges Cardinals were given in the 1999 "Elenchus" from the Vatican Secretary of State. In what pertains to their person, Cardinals are exempt from the authority of the local bishop (c. 357.2) but, as far as public sacramental ministry goes and who holds offices in the diocese, the diocesan bishop determines who does what (cc. 157, 381, 391). (Except, as noted, restricting a Cardinal's hearing of Confession seems beyond the power of the bishop).

I think the archbishop has acted appropriately and well within his rights.

Dan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Feb 8, '13, 6:58 am
Brendan's Avatar
Brendan Brendan is online now
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 13,115
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by dans0622 View Post
I don't know what "provisions of canon law" or "universal faculties" he is talking about, other than the faculty to hear Confessions
It would also include the right to Baptize and to say public Mass.

Confirmations are a bit tricky, as there would be no doubt that the Confirmations would be valid, permission would be needed when as the Confirmandi are no longer his faithful. Permission is assumed by default, but it would be within the rights of Archbishop Gomex to restrict Cardinal Mahony from publically offering the Sacrament (which, is what I believe happened)
__________________
Brendan
________________________________________ _______
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Feb 8, '13, 7:15 am
JReducation's Avatar
JReducation JReducation is offline
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2007
Posts: 20,168
Religion: CATHOLIC
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by paperwight66 View Post
You beat me to it!

Mind you, given the Prince of Wales's interest in the environment etc. I suppose he might quite like the extra title.

(Sorry about the teasing, Bro JR, but to a Brit the typo stands out, rather!)
Not a problem. I noticed it later in the day, too late to change it. What was I thinking?
__________________
Fraternally,

Brother JR, FFV

"Forget not love."


How long have I waited . . .
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Feb 8, '13, 10:48 am
dans0622 dans0622 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2008
Posts: 1,381
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
It would also include the right to Baptize and to say public Mass.

Confirmations are a bit tricky, as there would be no doubt that the Confirmations would be valid, permission would be needed when as the Confirmandi are no longer his faithful. ...
Hello,

Certainly, there is no question of validity of these Sacraments. Nevertheless, the law says the Cardinals can do such things privately, i.e., for the benefit of "their household" (See 1999 Elenchus, #4). It gives them no such "faculty" to do them publicly, beyond what any and every priest has when ordained and beyond what is under the authority of the bishop of the diocese. That is how I read the law. Do you happen to have a reference to the contrary?

Dan
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Feb 8, '13, 11:05 am
MarkThompson MarkThompson is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2010
Posts: 5,330
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

A couple of remarks upon an otherwise excellent post, Brother:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JReducation View Post
In the past cardinals were laymen, deacons, priests and bishops. Today, they must be clerics: deacons, priests and bishops. The Code of 1983 does not allow for laymen to be named cardinals.
The Code is essentially irrelevant in this respect, since the only person who can create cardinals (the Pope) is also the only person who can dispense with the Code at will. Likewise the Code has no provision for non-bishop cardinals, but the Pope still creates them whenever he wants.

Quote:
Cardinals have universal jurisdiction. A cardinal does not have to ask for faculties to celebrate the sacraments in any diocese around the world.
Cardinals have universal faculties, not universal jurisdiction. Indeed, they do not have any jurisdiction at all absent some other position in the Church (a bishopric, membership on a Curial committee, etc.).

Quote:
A cardinal is a prince of the Church. Whether he is a layman or a cleric, the Church commands that he be treated as what he is, royalty.
Cardinals are sometimes called "Princes of the Church" because, traditionally, they were treated in diplomacy and precedence as ranking equivalently with princes. They are not, however, actually princes or royalty, nor does the Church say they are; still less does it "command" that they be treated "as royalty."
__________________
Qui meditabitur in lege Domini die ac nocte, dabit fructum suum in tempore suo.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Feb 8, '13, 11:19 am
Leon Bloy's Avatar
Leon Bloy Leon Bloy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2011
Posts: 710
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by JReducation View Post
Whoah!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slow down here. When we use the word "honorary" it does not mean the same as getting an honorary doctorate from University X. The term is used to mean that being named a cardinal is an honor.

In the past cardinals were laymen, deacons, priests and bishops. Today, they must be clerics: deacons, priests and bishops. The Code of 1983 does not allow for laymen to be named cardinals.

There have been some famous cardinals that were not bishops such as Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal John Henry Newman. To say that "he wasn't even a bishop" is quite offensive, because of its dismissive tone. We have to be very careful when we write to keep in mind that the reader cannot hear our tone of voice. Yes, these men were not bishops.

Having said this, being named a cardinal does bring with it rights and duties that other bishops do not have. This is not a mere honor. It is an honor to be named a cardinal, but it's not something that just looks pretty in someone's name. Cardinal Dulles had rights and duties that bishops did not have. To the best of my knowledge, he never voted in a conclave. But he voted on other significant issues.

Cardinals have universal jurisdiction. A cardinal does not have to ask for faculties to celebrate the sacraments in any diocese around the world.

A cardinal is a prince of the Church. Whether he is a layman or a cleric, the Church commands that he be treated as what he is, royalty.

Cardinals do not have the "privilege" of electing the pope. They have a moral duty to do so. During the period between the death of one pope and the election of his successors, they run the Church.

Only cardinals can participate in the process of canonization. While there are many theologians involved, canon lawyers, historians and other experts, only cardinals are allowed to decide if the person in question has lived a life of extraordinary Christian virtue. After the case has been argued and the defender of the faith rests, meaning that he cannot find any reason that the person should not be nominated for canonization, the process goes no further unless the cardinals appointed to the process review and sign the recommendation. No one else has this right. Only the pope can overrule them.

Every cardinal has the right to have his own church in the City of Rome. This is not a privilege, it is a moral right. In other words, it is considered justice.

The difference between a cardinal and an archbishop has to do with jurisdiction.

An archbishop is the bishop of an archdiocese. He is no different from any other bishop. His diocese is different. An archdiocese is a metropolitan see. This means that it is the center of a Catholic Province. In the State of California, because of the size of the state and the large number of Catholics, there are two provinces. There are two archdioceses: San Francisco and Los Angeles.

When a cardinal is assigned to be the ordinary of a diocese, he is always assigned to an archdiocese. So we say that Cardinal N is the archbishop of . . .

For example, we say that Cardinal Sean is the archbishop of Boston. Cardinal Dalton, is the archbishop of New York and so forth. When these men retire, they cease to be the archbishop, because they no longer hold the post. They never cease to be princess of the Church with all of the rights and duties that go along with the title.

Imagine England. Right now Prince Charles is Prince of Whales. If he were to resign, he ceases to be Prince of Whales. However, he does not cease to be a prince, nor does he cease to be the hair apparent to the throne unless he abdicates. The title, Prince of Whales passes on to his son, but the father remains the heir apparent.

The same happens in the Church. A cardinal retires or is removed form his post, he ceases to exercise that post. He does not cease to be a prince, nor does he lose the rights that come with being a prince or is he relieved of the duties that come with the title.

Only the pope can relieve a cardinal of his rights and duties. The archbishop of a diocese in which a cardinal resides can only restrict the cardinal with the approval of the Holy See.

The cardinal is not higher than the archbishop. The archbishop is the man at the top of the archdiocese. He is the apostle who runs that church that we call a diocese, not the cardinal who resides in his diocese. However, the cardinal remains a prince and the archbishop must treat him as a prince. The only person who can restrict a prince is the monarch, even when the prince has no legal authority. A retired archbishop, whether he's a cardinal or not, has no authority in the affairs of a diocese where he lives or the one that he ran once upon a time.
Many good points above, but an archbishop, as correctly noted above, is the "governor" and pastor of his diocese, and nobody else. He can, however, say that a cardinal/former archbishop residing in his diocese (or anybody else, except the the Pope himself) no longer officially represents his home archdiocese, which is basically what Archbishop Gomez did in LA in the case in question. That is, Cardinal Mahony (since this was national news, it seems a little much to worry about naming names, here) will not celebrate confirmations, serve on archdiocesan boards, represent the archbishop as his emissary anyplace, etc. However, the Cardinal can of course still celebrate masses, etc., and perform his duties to the universal Church as a cardinal.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Feb 8, '13, 8:42 pm
JReducation's Avatar
JReducation JReducation is offline
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2007
Posts: 20,168
Religion: CATHOLIC
Default Re: Archbishop -vs- Cardinal

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkThompson View Post
A couple of remarks upon an otherwise excellent post, Brother:



The Code is essentially irrelevant in this respect, since the only person who can create cardinals (the Pope) is also the only person who can dispense with the Code at will. Likewise the Code has no provision for non-bishop cardinals, but the Pope still creates them whenever he wants.
We go by the code, because it is the pope who promulgated the code. But you're right in the sense that the pope is not bound by his own rules.

Quote:
Cardinals have universal faculties, not universal jurisdiction. Indeed, they do not have any jurisdiction at all absent some other position in the Church (a bishopric, membership on a Curial committee, etc.).
Thank you for the assistance. Faculties is what I was looking for and could not remember the term. It's called "old age."

Quote:
Cardinals are sometimes called "Princes of the Church" because, traditionally, they were treated in diplomacy and precedence as ranking equivalently with princes. They are not, however, actually princes or royalty, nor does the Church say they are; still less does it "command" that they be treated "as royalty."
Not exactly. It's a rather interesting situation. While it is true that there is nothing in Canon Law that says one way or another, there is in practice with the Church, including the papacy itself holds cardinals up as royal members of the Church.

We always have to pay attention to the law and when it's not in the law, watch what Rome does. Rome's actions will tell you the unwritten law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon Bloy View Post
Many good points above, but an archbishop, as correctly noted above, is the "governor" and pastor of his diocese, and nobody else. He can, however, say that a cardinal/former archbishop residing in his diocese (or anybody else, except the the Pope himself) no longer officially represents his home archdiocese, which is basically what Archbishop Gomez did in LA in the case in question. That is, Cardinal Mahony (since this was national news, it seems a little much to worry about naming names, here) will not celebrate confirmations, serve on archdiocesan boards, represent the archbishop as his emissary anyplace, etc. However, the Cardinal can of course still celebrate masses, etc., and perform his duties to the universal Church as a cardinal.
The ordinary is the highest ranking authority in the diocese, except in those places that are under the jurisdiction of religious. In those places, it's the superior.

Whether or not a retired ordinary celebrates confirmations, ordains or performs other functions in the diocese is always up to the ordinary, even when there is not a problem.

No one can walk in and say that they're going to celebrate these confirmations because the person is a cardinal. That function belongs to the Ordinary or whomever he asks to do it for him. I'm trying to think, but can't come up with a situation where a cardinal can take over for the ordinary without the invitation by the same. I'm sure that there must be some exception that I may have missed.
__________________
Fraternally,

Brother JR, FFV

"Forget not love."


How long have I waited . . .
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8295Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: eschator83
5059CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4348Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: Marla Frances
4033OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3848SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3598Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3256Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3210Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3179Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3062For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Kellyreneeomara



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:15 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.