[quote="JReducation, post:6, topic:314092"]
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.