This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cardinal (Catholic Church) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The contents of the Prince of the Church page were merged into Cardinal (Catholic Church). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (May 19, 2023) |
I have added a paragraph about the politician cardinals - Wolsey, Richelieu and Mazarin. Its not meant to be a criticism of the office but I think the article needs an explanation of why three of the most famous cardinals in histo politicians more than churchmen. Edmilne 07:21, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
There was more interface between religious and civil matters then. "Politician Cardinals" reminded me of those who submitted the veto by certain secular powers of some particular candidate for the papacy; last use of this was in 1903, and then Pius X ramped up the penalty for doing this.
Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple questions. Are cardinals restricted to being drawn ftom the ranks of bishops by law or only by custom? Did the "people" of Rome really once elect the Pope or only a small select group such as priests, or politicians? I didn't know the common folk every had a vote in Rome. --rmhermen
Well, as I understand it some Pope announced that all later cardinals would be bishops, and all later Popes have followed him by only appointing bishops as Popes; but there is nothing to stop the Pope changing his mind tomorrow and appointing a plain priest or a layperson a cardinal instead. The distinction between 'law' and 'custom' doesn't always make that much sense, especially I think in cases like this.
As to who could vote for the Pope before the cardinals could, I'm not to sure. Someone should do some research on the topic. -- Simon J Kissane
Not exactly a vote, but as a pressure group (rioting outside wherever the electors were, stoning electors as they left, etc.) they certainly had influence. I think that under the new code of canon law --voting-- cardinals may be formally restricted to being bishops. John Paul II has appointed several aging theologians to cardinalates who were not previously bishops (Jean Danielou, a Frenchman, is an example), and I'm not sure if he created them titular bishops along with cardinals to make up for it. In the case of these men they were controversial enough that the fact they were over 80 mattered. --MichaelTinkler
I think today whenever the Pope appoints a non-bishop to be a cardinal he has them consecrated a bishop first, but I'm not completely sure. --
Simon J Kissane
by the way, the Pope doesn't have to be a bishop on election, either (which I knew, but had forgotten):
you are right that Canon 351 §1 states that non-bishops must receive episcopal consecration, but the Pope has the right to dispense someone from receiving it. Examples: Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Scheffczyk asked the pope to excuse them from receiving the episcopal consecration because of advanced age. The pope accepted it. Thus those 2 are cardinals without being bishops. 143.50.212.195 15:04, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It was John XXIII who provided that Cardinals should be bishops, and he provided that rank to Cardinals of that time who weren't already bishops. Exceptions were provided by John Paul II and his successors; such appointees have been close to age 80 or already at least age 80, and the conclaves of 2005 and 2013 had no non-bishop participants. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If, say, the Archbishop of Boston is a Cardinal, is it then correct to refer to him as "the Cardinal of Boston"?
S.
Sometimes I have seen reference to "Cardinal _____ of ______", with the understanding that he is Cardinal and concurrently the bishop of said diocese. Such a Cardinal, as indicated above for the current Archbishop of Boston (that would be Cardinal Sean O'Malley), would be a cardinal priest, the usual practice for the bishop of a diocese outside the Roman province. Sometimes I see reference to "Cardinal Archbishop", although, in my previous, anonymous edits on Wikipedia, in the header lines of such a prelate's article, I placed comma between those 2 words and used separate click-ons, because those are separate appointments. There is no requirement that the bishop of any particular diocese become a Cardinal, and when Albert Meyer, Archbishop of Milwaukee, was tapped for Chicago in 1958, a newspaper article explained that he would still be "Archbishop", with Cardinal being a separate appointment. (Meyer became Cardinal in 1959 and died in 1965.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If it doesn't already exist, would a List of notable cardinals be of any use? -- KF 18:07, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The syntactic construction used once on this page, e.g. Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, is not widely understood, and IMO worth a paragraph. I'm pretty sure i've heard the expression "cardinal archbishop" without a name; is that an error? Is "Archbishop Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte" better or worse than "Archbishop Jean-Claude Turcotte"?
Also, i changed a listing to
in List of people by name: Tf-Th#Thf - Thi and intend in List of people by name: Nh, to have
By analogy with that List of people by name: Mas-Maz#Maz lists
which i'm inclined to change to
(Note he is the only Mazarin, so there is no need for a duplicate entry for people who don't know about "jules".)
The article Cardinal Mazarin begins
but am i right that
would be accurate and more thorough? -- Jerzy 07:41, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC) Yes, he wss Italian, then took on the French form of that name, then became a Cardinal.
Neither "Archbishop Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte" or "Archbishop Jean-Claude Turcotte" would be correct; archbishop refers to the individual's position, while Cardinal is his title (unlike, for example, the Archbishop of Louisville, Kentucky, who would correctly be addressed as "Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly" because his title is Archbishop and his position is Archbishop). It would be correct to refer to the individual as "Cardinal Turcotte," or as "Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop of Montreal," but it would be an insult to demote him to "Archbishop Turcotte." It is, however, acceptable to refer to him as the "Cardinal Archbishop of Montreal" or as a "Cardinal Archbishop," because those terms signify that the individual is a Cardinal who is in charge of an Archdiocese. (All Cardinals are not assigned a diocese to govern.)
--
Essjay 03:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)Essjay
Turcotte, now deceased, was "His Eminence Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop of Montreal". I prefer not to use "Cardinal Archbishop" on wikipedia (although I leave ONLY a comma between those 2 words); however, there could be LOCAL circumstances where a prelate is "Cardinal Archbishop", and this simply refers to an Archbishop who concurrently is Cardinal.
"Not all Cardinals are assigned a diocese" - however I understand that all Cardinals are also appointed to a parish within the diocese of Rome. Thus although they are "princes of the church" they are also humble servants of a parish. (IANARC)
Albatross2147 11:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cardinal priests and cardinal deacons have had no administrative function regarding their cardinalitial titular churches for as long as I can remember. Cardinal bishops into the 1960s officially had administrative duties in those sees, but Pope John XXIII removed that, providing for OTHER bishops to provide the local-ordinary functions.
Some cardinals are not archbishops due to the fact that they do not lead archdioceses, either residential or titular. Karl Cardinal Lehmann and Paul Cardinal Shan Kuo-hsi are examples, as they are respectively the Bishop of Mainz and the Bishop of Kaohsiung. Mainz was an archdiocese but was demoted in 1801; currently, its metropolitan is the Archbishop of Freiburg im Breisgau. The Diocese of Kaohsiung was erected in 1961 and hasn't been elevated yet; its metropolitan is the Archbishop of Taipei. Pmadrid 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do see that Cardinals from the U.S. don't include the case of a diocesan bishop as opposed to diocesan archbishop. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I am unclear on the appropriateness of forms of address for deceased cardinals. I know while living, they are refered to as His Eminence, and when I have edited a cardinal article, I usually begin it:
But should articles about deceased cardinals begin the same way? I guess this is a bigger question about the retension of forms of address after death — should George VI of the United Kingdom begin with "His Magesty"? The article Style (manner of address) was not totally clear on the issue.
-- Eoghanacht 17:00, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter if the Cardinal is deceased. What would matter is if the Cardinal became Pope or had the even rarer case of resigning or being deposed as Cardinal, as happened last year with Theodore McCarrick. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've heard a different etymological explanation for "cardinal." Cardo does not only mean 'hinge' in Latin, but also "wedge." Some scholars say that prior to 11th century spin, the term originally had a negative connotation. Cardinals were priests who were "wedged" or stuck into an appointment from the outside--a priest the Vatican appointed to a high rank in a diocese which was not originally his, for example. This is the explanation given by Diarmaid MacColloch in The Reformation, and in Princes of the Church: A History of the English Cardinals by Dominic Aidan Bellenger and Stella Fletcher (see https://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/book_review.cgi?past-00042 ) Makrina 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page about creating a list of which Pope elevated their future successors as cardinals (and any other contributions are welcome). Jackiespeel 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
While you're thinking about merging, the Cardinal Bishop, Cardinal Priest and Cardinal Deacon articles have a lot of overlap. Is there a good reason they could not be subsections of the "orders of cardinals" section here (leaving redirects in place)? Gimmetrow 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
James-Charles Noonan writes that "it is improper to refer to a cardinal in any other form than John Cardinal Doe. The recent practice of Cardinal John Doe is improper and has no foundation in law." How recent is "recent". The order "Cardinal John Doe" is found in the early-twentieth-century Catholic Encyclopedia, e.g. "Cardinal Giovanni Battista Caprara" in the article Legate, and doubtless long before. Those who drew up the index of the electronic copy chose the form "John Cardinal Doe". It is surely they who are recent, not the encyclopedia. I am quite unfamiliar with the name "James-Charles Noonan". How authoritative is he? What law is he referring to? A Church law governing English usage in the matter? I don't believe there is such a law. Lima 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Jonathan Pryce played the fictional Cardinal Houseman in Stigmata (1995)."
The movie was released in 1999 not 1995 and also the link to "Stigmata" links to the act of stigmata rather than the movie "Stigmata"
Though the movie is about a woman who has stigmata if someone was trying to follow the link for the movie they'd get the article on the affliction (or gift if you so desire) of stigmata.
199.67.7.151 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Stonent
I was checking the caption I used for an image in medieval cuisine, and I became a bit unsure of a guess I made. The person sitting to the left of the duke (in blue robe and fur hat) seems to be a man of the cloth, but is he a cardinal or a bishop, or, in fact, neither?
Peter Isotalo 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you positive of this? His clothing seems to closely resemble that of a cleric, and he has the shaven head that resembels that of a friar.
Peter Isotalo 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'll even try to find the text accompanying the illustration. Thanks for your thorough answer.
Peter Isotalo 10:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the Pope to me! Gavin ( talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have come across references to various "senior religious persons" from churches outside the Catholic one being made cardinals (Britannica Yearbooks) - how many are there/have there been, and what is their position? (Can they attend papal conclaves for example?) Jackiespeel 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this. Something of such an apparently speculative nature and tone, I think, would have to be sourced to be taken seriously.
I have nothing to do with the above paragraph or said now-deleted material, but JP2 did name a few in-pectore Cardinals and eventually published them EXCEPT FOR THE LAST ONE. It had to be explained that an in-pectore appointment expires when the pope who made it dies without publishing it, because by then there were many people too young to remember 1963 (John XXIII died and left unpublished his 3 in-pectore appointments of 1960). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The article says "a Latin-rite cardinal wears scarlet garments because "the blood-like red symbolizes a cardinal's willingness to die for his faith". However, Voltaire, in the Dictionnaire philosophique (1764) has the 'blood'/'red' part quite differently. At the Council of Lyons in 1245, at which Innocent IV excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, he says the Pope gave the Cardinals red hats as a reminder that they were to 'bathe in the blood of the supporters of the Emperor'. I must say this sounds more realistic. Some Cardinals, then, could indeed arrange for much blood-letting: such as in 1243 when Cardinal Ranieri of Viterbo had Rome's Imperial garrison slaughtered. And Cardinal Pietro Capocci who invaded Sicily with the Papal Army in 1250 (albeit entirely routed at the Battle of Cingoli.)
Alipius 03:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is still not clear about the difference between Cardinal v. Bishop. Is the cardinal referring to the Bishop who is member of the college? Are not, technically, all Archbishops of the same "credo" entitled to elect their Pope? Why not the Archbishop of a major city like Paris is not automatically a member of the college?-- Connection 12:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that every time the Pope announces his intention to held a consistory to create new cardinals there arises the question of when does a Cardinal-Designate become a Cardinal (i.e., could vote in a conclave should it be needed, etc.)
According to Canon Law (351 §2): "Cardinals are created by a decree of the Roman Pontiff, which in fact is published in the presence of the College of Cardinals. From the moment of publication, they are bound by the obligations and they enjoy the rights defined in the law."
So the question becomes, does the announcement (such as on Wednesday 17 October 2007) constitute "publication"?
The Holy Father indirectly made this clear in his introduction to the announcement. He mentions that he is abrogating “by one” the rule of 120 Cardinal Electors. The key point there is “by one”. For today there are 104 Cardinals under the age of 80 and thus Cardinal Electors.
He named 18 new Cardinal Electors. Thus giving us 122 Cardinal Electors if he intended the announcement as the official publication.
It should be noted that Cardinal Sodano turns 80 and loses the right to vote on 23 November.
So, if the Holy Father intends to aborgate the rule “by one” as he clearly stated, then the official publication can not occur before 23 November. (And, of course, 24 November is the stated date for the Consistory itself.)
Thus it becomes clear that the announcement is not "publication" - and so the Cardinal-Designates remain Cardinal-Designates until the consistory.-- Dcheney 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
the article refers to a gold ring 'which is traditionally kissed by Catholics when a cardinal is greeted.' Is this not rather true of the ring of any bishop? I don't think it is restricted to Cardinals. Richardson mcphillips1 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholicism) → Cardinal — We should really give the main article to what is now Cardinal (Catholicism). A look at "what links here" on Cardinal shows this is overwhemingly the main use involved. The mathmatical use is at Cardinal number, & if there were a predominant sports team using the term they could have "Cardinals" (I don't have a view on that). Few people can really link to "Cardinal" when they mean " cardinal bird", and the other uses are minor. The present Cardinal should therefore become "Cardinal (disambiguation)", which I have also proposed there — Johnbod 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Image:Mitrescola.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use ... [remainder of notice removed] BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there no list of Cardinals on Wikipedia? Gavin Scott ( talk) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Although he is not a bishop, and so could not be assigned to one of the suburbicarian sees, he is entitled to wear the episcopal vestments and other pontificalia (episcopal regalia: mitre, crozier, pectoral cross and ring) and to possess a cardinalatial coat of arms.
I removed the "suburbicarian see part", since it is misleading: None of the Cardinal Deacons and Cardinal Priests are assigned to a suburbicarian see (even though the huge majority of them are bishops). Gugganij ( talk) 11:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As a non-bishop, he could not be (within the College of Cardinals) a cardinal bishop; he could only be a cardinal priest or cardinal deacon. A cardinal bishop of Roman title had title to a suburbicarian diocese (actual local-ordinary functions are assigned to other bishops per Pope John XXIII), but it was noted by Pope Francis last year that this needed expansion, so he provided this rank for 4 cardinals who, however, retained their current titular churches but now at suburbicarian rank. Carlm0404 ( talk) 06:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I replaced Stephen Kim Sou-hwan with Eugenio Sales de Araujo as the Protopriest in charge. The information was found on vatican.va. Nevertheless I'm not sure any more, if this edit was correct. Serveral other sources, claim Kim as Protopriest. Can anyone excplain (and proof) whether age or the order of creation within the consistory counts for internal ranking? Kim was #20 on the list, Sales #22. -- Heraklitcnl ( talk) 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a number of edits today removing significant information from the article that does not appear elsewhere in the Wiki, as far as I can tell. Is there some reason this is being done out of tbe blue with no prior discussion?-- Dcheney ( talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The history section does not tell us when and why the first cardinals came into existence. They are not mentioned in the Bible or early Christian history. Could someone supply this? APW ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The article could maybe explain that the word Cardinal is sometimes misused by writers that are talking about any monsignor, any prelate or any employee of the Roman Curia. The idea is that since certain bishops and monsignors dress in red, therefore all these bishops and monsignors must be Cardinals. But, this is obviously a factual inaccuracy. ADM ( talk) 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What is this about monsignor? Ignoring some countries' use of "monsignor" to also refer to a bishop (who isn't Cardinal or Pope), a monsignor's formal garb has some resemblance to that of a bishop (notice the color PURPLE) but leaving off pontifical insignia such as pectoral cross.
I have removed the "Popular culture" section. It was basically a list of "Actor X played Cardinal Y in movie Z", which brings very little, and is contrary to WP policy on popular culture (where actual effects, influences, and truly notable portrayals may be relevant). 94.220.245.253 ( talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Would 1995hoo please explain what justification there is for deleting the sourced edit that shows that two authoritative secular stylebooks and one Catholic ecclesiastical one declare that the proper way in present-day English to refer to a cardinal is as Cardinal John Smith, rather than than John Cardinal Smith? Is it not an objective fact, documented by cited reliable sources, that "important secular stylebooks indicate that in present-day English the 'Cardinal John Doe' order is the one to use when referring to cardinals"? Lima ( talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I need some help sorting this out. I understand that Pope Paul VI introduced a mandatory retirement age of 70 for priests and 75 for bishops and archbishops. But what about cardinals? Do they just go on forever? Or, all being at least bishops these days before their elevation to cardinal, are they subject to the 75-year rule for bishops? Ratzinger was over 75 when elected pope, and he had certainly not retired.
Then, there's the rule about who can take part in the conclave: cardinals over the age of 80 are ineligible to vote. That suggests that at least those cardinals over 75, but not yet 80, are still working. So it looks like the mandatory retirement age does not apply to cardinals, or if there is one, it doesn't cut in till at least 80. But this is just about voting in the conclave, not about whether they maintain their duties generally speaking. Further, I've seen nothing that says a cardinal aged over 80 is ineligible to be elected as pope, just ineligible to take part in the voting.
Can someone clarify all this for me? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
For your information, by the time Pope Benedict XVI retired, the rule for eligibilty in a conclave is that you had to be under age 80 when the papacy became vacant. Cardinal Walter Kasper met that requirement, and participated in the ensuing conclave (which elected Pope Francis) although he turned 80 before that conclave started. Cardinal Kasper is not eligible to participate in subsequent conclaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Bishop (or Archbishop) of a diocese, even if he's Cardinal, must offer his retirement when he reaches 75, but said offer does not have to be ACCEPTED right then. Cardinals who serve as curia deparment heads give that up at 80, and all Cardinals cease as conclave electors at age 80 if it comes during a pontificate; notice above that Walter Kasper reached 80 after Pope Benedict XVI stepped down. The conclave is not to be scheduled to include or exclude a Cardinal who happens to be very close to the age limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The traditional form of a cardinal's title has been established for centuries upon centuries. Some editors have made unconvincing arguments for why we ought to depart from that form in favor of a novel form advanced (primarily by secular stylebooks and modernist clergy) over the last few decades. It is obvious that we should not. Nor is BRD is a useful model here, because the debate has already played itself out ad nauseum over several years; a glance at the talk page above will show that. I see nothing to be gained from another round of that argument, another round in which those who want to depart from the traditional usage will advance the same tired arguments which those who prefer to get it right will continue to find unpersuasive. Those arguments do not become more attractive with the passage of time; in fact, to some extent, it's just the opposite. Tradition is the yardstick by which "correct" is measured, not the house style of the associated press, and the traditional form is clear. We should stick with it. (Nor, by the way, was the revert performed appropriate since it threw ought both changes you didn't like and unobjectionable changes. I urge you to work granularly if you must work at all.) - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the best way to handle the wording here? I support Esoglau's edit a moment ago, but as his source notes, B16 increased the number of voting Cardinals to 121 for two months, and the concern of a conclave happening between 11/20/10 and 1/20/26 became moot almost a month ago. Shouldn't the text reflect that in some way?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You probably know that, even with no deaths, the number of electors will gradually decrease as cardinals reach 80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It is noted that, in place of imposing the red hat, "investiture now takes place with the scarlet biretta". Could someone write about the earlier conferring of the red biretta? For example, in some countries the head of state conferred the red biretta; there was a case as late as the 1960s where this was done (the head of state was Francisco Franco of Spain). An earlier case of head-of-state conferral was in 1914 on new cardinal Janos Csernoch by Archduke Franz Ferdinand, filling in for the aged (over 80) Emperor Franz Josef I; Franz Ferdinand was assassinated a month later (the immediate cause of what we know as World War I). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If you know who the cardinal is, you might check out the FIU cardinals site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Try Cardinal Csernoch, whom I already mentioned above. The FIU cardinals site and that cardinal's article on wikipedia both have the red biretta being conferred by Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Also, look up Pope John XXIII; as Cardinal Roncalli, he received the red biretta from President Vincent Auriol of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis announced that he will hold his first Consistory to Create New Cardinals on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter (22 February 2014). No names or even a number of new cardinals was mentioned.-- Dcheney ( talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
today at the UN there were people wearing cardinal vestments but the hats were different colors: some were red and some were purple, why the difference ? John5Russell3Finley ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Did the men with purple hats also wear purple robes? The purple and red robes might very well be similar except in color. I assume the hat would be a biretta; a Cardinal's would NOT have a tuft on the top, but a purple one would. (I saw somewhere that the Patriarch of Venice gets to wear red even if he isn't Cardinal, so his biretta has red tuft unless he IS Cardinal!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholicism) → Cardinal (Catholic Church) – WP:CONSISTENCY: Priesthood (Catholic Church), Bishop (Catholic Church), and Holy Orders (Catholic Church) specifically, as well as the wider convention of using "(Catholic Church)" for parenthetical disambiguations of Catholic Church–related articles. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 01:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.archdioceseofcolombo.com/2_1.php,{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3196655.eceWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. The nomination may or not be frivolous, but it is kind of malformed in the sense that no evidence was given to prove that this is a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; you gotta prove that something is the primary topic instead of just claiming it without. As for the actual debate on whether primary topic status is achieved or not, then, well, that more of a no consensus. No prejudice to another RM iff there is actual evidence to support the move. ( non-admin closure) Sky Warrior 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholic Church) → Cardinal – WP:Primarytopic. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Were catholic cardinals forbidden to marry. Were they supposed to be celibate? If so, please add this to the information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.228.45 ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved.( non-admin closure) Kostas20142 ( talk) 09:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholic Church) →
Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church – Since previous above request "
Cardinal" in reference to
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC didn't meet consensus before the birdy - "X (Catholic Church)" used to be a recurrent formula, but has since been replaced with the formula "
Prayer in the Catholic Church", etc. However, not sure "Cardinal in the Catholic Church makes sense. Therefore, proposal per
WP:Consistency in accordance with
Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 04:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholic Church) → Cardinal in the Catholic Church – Tryng this one, since the X (Y) article name formula seems to wain towards deprication. Per WP:Consistency with Mass in the Catholic Church, Priesthood in the Catholic Church, etc. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stylebook/stylebooksample.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I just wrote this in making a change in the Wikipedia page of Cardinal Reinhard Marx: > Normally, I discourage use of "Cardinal Archbishop". Directly under Reinhard Marx' name at top of this Wikipedia entry, notice COMMA between those 2 words. This provides for his being a Cardinal Priest within the ranks of College of Cardinals. In a local setting away from Rome, there may indeed be usage of "Cardinal Archbishop", which there would remind people that this particular Archbishop is concurrently a Cardinal. There was a case where I discovered use of this in a church-related program which had been uploaded; it described someone as secretary to the Cardinal Archbishop. Carlm0404 ( talk) 06:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that there are only a handful of Cardinal Bishops, shouldn't the section just name them? - Chieharumachi ( talk) 04:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The section affrims:
Cardinal priests are the most numerous of the three orders of cardinals in the Catholic Church, ranking above the cardinal deacons and below the cardinal bishops.
Though it is sourced, the proposition is completely false. As of 2021, the Roman Catholic Church has no more than three cardinals whi aren't (yey) consacrated as bishops (source: [11]). This practice doesn't observe canon n° 351 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is still in force. it states that:
The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
The number of cardinal priests is so limited just because it needs a specific pontifical waiver which, according to the norm, shall be justified exclusively in exceptional cases of:
Special:Contributions/94.38.236.159 ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) 10:29 28 March 2021
I propose merging Prince of the Church into Cardinal (Catholic Church). The former appears to simply be an occasionally-used historical title for the latter. Moriwen ( talk) 22:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cardinal (Catholic Church) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Prince of the Church page were merged into Cardinal (Catholic Church). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (May 19, 2023) |
I have added a paragraph about the politician cardinals - Wolsey, Richelieu and Mazarin. Its not meant to be a criticism of the office but I think the article needs an explanation of why three of the most famous cardinals in histo politicians more than churchmen. Edmilne 07:21, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
There was more interface between religious and civil matters then. "Politician Cardinals" reminded me of those who submitted the veto by certain secular powers of some particular candidate for the papacy; last use of this was in 1903, and then Pius X ramped up the penalty for doing this.
Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple questions. Are cardinals restricted to being drawn ftom the ranks of bishops by law or only by custom? Did the "people" of Rome really once elect the Pope or only a small select group such as priests, or politicians? I didn't know the common folk every had a vote in Rome. --rmhermen
Well, as I understand it some Pope announced that all later cardinals would be bishops, and all later Popes have followed him by only appointing bishops as Popes; but there is nothing to stop the Pope changing his mind tomorrow and appointing a plain priest or a layperson a cardinal instead. The distinction between 'law' and 'custom' doesn't always make that much sense, especially I think in cases like this.
As to who could vote for the Pope before the cardinals could, I'm not to sure. Someone should do some research on the topic. -- Simon J Kissane
Not exactly a vote, but as a pressure group (rioting outside wherever the electors were, stoning electors as they left, etc.) they certainly had influence. I think that under the new code of canon law --voting-- cardinals may be formally restricted to being bishops. John Paul II has appointed several aging theologians to cardinalates who were not previously bishops (Jean Danielou, a Frenchman, is an example), and I'm not sure if he created them titular bishops along with cardinals to make up for it. In the case of these men they were controversial enough that the fact they were over 80 mattered. --MichaelTinkler
I think today whenever the Pope appoints a non-bishop to be a cardinal he has them consecrated a bishop first, but I'm not completely sure. --
Simon J Kissane
by the way, the Pope doesn't have to be a bishop on election, either (which I knew, but had forgotten):
you are right that Canon 351 §1 states that non-bishops must receive episcopal consecration, but the Pope has the right to dispense someone from receiving it. Examples: Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Scheffczyk asked the pope to excuse them from receiving the episcopal consecration because of advanced age. The pope accepted it. Thus those 2 are cardinals without being bishops. 143.50.212.195 15:04, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It was John XXIII who provided that Cardinals should be bishops, and he provided that rank to Cardinals of that time who weren't already bishops. Exceptions were provided by John Paul II and his successors; such appointees have been close to age 80 or already at least age 80, and the conclaves of 2005 and 2013 had no non-bishop participants. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If, say, the Archbishop of Boston is a Cardinal, is it then correct to refer to him as "the Cardinal of Boston"?
S.
Sometimes I have seen reference to "Cardinal _____ of ______", with the understanding that he is Cardinal and concurrently the bishop of said diocese. Such a Cardinal, as indicated above for the current Archbishop of Boston (that would be Cardinal Sean O'Malley), would be a cardinal priest, the usual practice for the bishop of a diocese outside the Roman province. Sometimes I see reference to "Cardinal Archbishop", although, in my previous, anonymous edits on Wikipedia, in the header lines of such a prelate's article, I placed comma between those 2 words and used separate click-ons, because those are separate appointments. There is no requirement that the bishop of any particular diocese become a Cardinal, and when Albert Meyer, Archbishop of Milwaukee, was tapped for Chicago in 1958, a newspaper article explained that he would still be "Archbishop", with Cardinal being a separate appointment. (Meyer became Cardinal in 1959 and died in 1965.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If it doesn't already exist, would a List of notable cardinals be of any use? -- KF 18:07, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The syntactic construction used once on this page, e.g. Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, is not widely understood, and IMO worth a paragraph. I'm pretty sure i've heard the expression "cardinal archbishop" without a name; is that an error? Is "Archbishop Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte" better or worse than "Archbishop Jean-Claude Turcotte"?
Also, i changed a listing to
in List of people by name: Tf-Th#Thf - Thi and intend in List of people by name: Nh, to have
By analogy with that List of people by name: Mas-Maz#Maz lists
which i'm inclined to change to
(Note he is the only Mazarin, so there is no need for a duplicate entry for people who don't know about "jules".)
The article Cardinal Mazarin begins
but am i right that
would be accurate and more thorough? -- Jerzy 07:41, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC) Yes, he wss Italian, then took on the French form of that name, then became a Cardinal.
Neither "Archbishop Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte" or "Archbishop Jean-Claude Turcotte" would be correct; archbishop refers to the individual's position, while Cardinal is his title (unlike, for example, the Archbishop of Louisville, Kentucky, who would correctly be addressed as "Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly" because his title is Archbishop and his position is Archbishop). It would be correct to refer to the individual as "Cardinal Turcotte," or as "Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop of Montreal," but it would be an insult to demote him to "Archbishop Turcotte." It is, however, acceptable to refer to him as the "Cardinal Archbishop of Montreal" or as a "Cardinal Archbishop," because those terms signify that the individual is a Cardinal who is in charge of an Archdiocese. (All Cardinals are not assigned a diocese to govern.)
--
Essjay 03:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)Essjay
Turcotte, now deceased, was "His Eminence Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop of Montreal". I prefer not to use "Cardinal Archbishop" on wikipedia (although I leave ONLY a comma between those 2 words); however, there could be LOCAL circumstances where a prelate is "Cardinal Archbishop", and this simply refers to an Archbishop who concurrently is Cardinal.
"Not all Cardinals are assigned a diocese" - however I understand that all Cardinals are also appointed to a parish within the diocese of Rome. Thus although they are "princes of the church" they are also humble servants of a parish. (IANARC)
Albatross2147 11:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cardinal priests and cardinal deacons have had no administrative function regarding their cardinalitial titular churches for as long as I can remember. Cardinal bishops into the 1960s officially had administrative duties in those sees, but Pope John XXIII removed that, providing for OTHER bishops to provide the local-ordinary functions.
Some cardinals are not archbishops due to the fact that they do not lead archdioceses, either residential or titular. Karl Cardinal Lehmann and Paul Cardinal Shan Kuo-hsi are examples, as they are respectively the Bishop of Mainz and the Bishop of Kaohsiung. Mainz was an archdiocese but was demoted in 1801; currently, its metropolitan is the Archbishop of Freiburg im Breisgau. The Diocese of Kaohsiung was erected in 1961 and hasn't been elevated yet; its metropolitan is the Archbishop of Taipei. Pmadrid 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do see that Cardinals from the U.S. don't include the case of a diocesan bishop as opposed to diocesan archbishop. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I am unclear on the appropriateness of forms of address for deceased cardinals. I know while living, they are refered to as His Eminence, and when I have edited a cardinal article, I usually begin it:
But should articles about deceased cardinals begin the same way? I guess this is a bigger question about the retension of forms of address after death — should George VI of the United Kingdom begin with "His Magesty"? The article Style (manner of address) was not totally clear on the issue.
-- Eoghanacht 17:00, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter if the Cardinal is deceased. What would matter is if the Cardinal became Pope or had the even rarer case of resigning or being deposed as Cardinal, as happened last year with Theodore McCarrick. Carlm0404 ( talk) 07:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've heard a different etymological explanation for "cardinal." Cardo does not only mean 'hinge' in Latin, but also "wedge." Some scholars say that prior to 11th century spin, the term originally had a negative connotation. Cardinals were priests who were "wedged" or stuck into an appointment from the outside--a priest the Vatican appointed to a high rank in a diocese which was not originally his, for example. This is the explanation given by Diarmaid MacColloch in The Reformation, and in Princes of the Church: A History of the English Cardinals by Dominic Aidan Bellenger and Stella Fletcher (see https://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/book_review.cgi?past-00042 ) Makrina 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page about creating a list of which Pope elevated their future successors as cardinals (and any other contributions are welcome). Jackiespeel 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
While you're thinking about merging, the Cardinal Bishop, Cardinal Priest and Cardinal Deacon articles have a lot of overlap. Is there a good reason they could not be subsections of the "orders of cardinals" section here (leaving redirects in place)? Gimmetrow 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
James-Charles Noonan writes that "it is improper to refer to a cardinal in any other form than John Cardinal Doe. The recent practice of Cardinal John Doe is improper and has no foundation in law." How recent is "recent". The order "Cardinal John Doe" is found in the early-twentieth-century Catholic Encyclopedia, e.g. "Cardinal Giovanni Battista Caprara" in the article Legate, and doubtless long before. Those who drew up the index of the electronic copy chose the form "John Cardinal Doe". It is surely they who are recent, not the encyclopedia. I am quite unfamiliar with the name "James-Charles Noonan". How authoritative is he? What law is he referring to? A Church law governing English usage in the matter? I don't believe there is such a law. Lima 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Jonathan Pryce played the fictional Cardinal Houseman in Stigmata (1995)."
The movie was released in 1999 not 1995 and also the link to "Stigmata" links to the act of stigmata rather than the movie "Stigmata"
Though the movie is about a woman who has stigmata if someone was trying to follow the link for the movie they'd get the article on the affliction (or gift if you so desire) of stigmata.
199.67.7.151 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Stonent
I was checking the caption I used for an image in medieval cuisine, and I became a bit unsure of a guess I made. The person sitting to the left of the duke (in blue robe and fur hat) seems to be a man of the cloth, but is he a cardinal or a bishop, or, in fact, neither?
Peter Isotalo 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you positive of this? His clothing seems to closely resemble that of a cleric, and he has the shaven head that resembels that of a friar.
Peter Isotalo 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'll even try to find the text accompanying the illustration. Thanks for your thorough answer.
Peter Isotalo 10:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the Pope to me! Gavin ( talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have come across references to various "senior religious persons" from churches outside the Catholic one being made cardinals (Britannica Yearbooks) - how many are there/have there been, and what is their position? (Can they attend papal conclaves for example?) Jackiespeel 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this. Something of such an apparently speculative nature and tone, I think, would have to be sourced to be taken seriously.
I have nothing to do with the above paragraph or said now-deleted material, but JP2 did name a few in-pectore Cardinals and eventually published them EXCEPT FOR THE LAST ONE. It had to be explained that an in-pectore appointment expires when the pope who made it dies without publishing it, because by then there were many people too young to remember 1963 (John XXIII died and left unpublished his 3 in-pectore appointments of 1960). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The article says "a Latin-rite cardinal wears scarlet garments because "the blood-like red symbolizes a cardinal's willingness to die for his faith". However, Voltaire, in the Dictionnaire philosophique (1764) has the 'blood'/'red' part quite differently. At the Council of Lyons in 1245, at which Innocent IV excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, he says the Pope gave the Cardinals red hats as a reminder that they were to 'bathe in the blood of the supporters of the Emperor'. I must say this sounds more realistic. Some Cardinals, then, could indeed arrange for much blood-letting: such as in 1243 when Cardinal Ranieri of Viterbo had Rome's Imperial garrison slaughtered. And Cardinal Pietro Capocci who invaded Sicily with the Papal Army in 1250 (albeit entirely routed at the Battle of Cingoli.)
Alipius 03:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is still not clear about the difference between Cardinal v. Bishop. Is the cardinal referring to the Bishop who is member of the college? Are not, technically, all Archbishops of the same "credo" entitled to elect their Pope? Why not the Archbishop of a major city like Paris is not automatically a member of the college?-- Connection 12:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that every time the Pope announces his intention to held a consistory to create new cardinals there arises the question of when does a Cardinal-Designate become a Cardinal (i.e., could vote in a conclave should it be needed, etc.)
According to Canon Law (351 §2): "Cardinals are created by a decree of the Roman Pontiff, which in fact is published in the presence of the College of Cardinals. From the moment of publication, they are bound by the obligations and they enjoy the rights defined in the law."
So the question becomes, does the announcement (such as on Wednesday 17 October 2007) constitute "publication"?
The Holy Father indirectly made this clear in his introduction to the announcement. He mentions that he is abrogating “by one” the rule of 120 Cardinal Electors. The key point there is “by one”. For today there are 104 Cardinals under the age of 80 and thus Cardinal Electors.
He named 18 new Cardinal Electors. Thus giving us 122 Cardinal Electors if he intended the announcement as the official publication.
It should be noted that Cardinal Sodano turns 80 and loses the right to vote on 23 November.
So, if the Holy Father intends to aborgate the rule “by one” as he clearly stated, then the official publication can not occur before 23 November. (And, of course, 24 November is the stated date for the Consistory itself.)
Thus it becomes clear that the announcement is not "publication" - and so the Cardinal-Designates remain Cardinal-Designates until the consistory.-- Dcheney 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
the article refers to a gold ring 'which is traditionally kissed by Catholics when a cardinal is greeted.' Is this not rather true of the ring of any bishop? I don't think it is restricted to Cardinals. Richardson mcphillips1 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholicism) → Cardinal — We should really give the main article to what is now Cardinal (Catholicism). A look at "what links here" on Cardinal shows this is overwhemingly the main use involved. The mathmatical use is at Cardinal number, & if there were a predominant sports team using the term they could have "Cardinals" (I don't have a view on that). Few people can really link to "Cardinal" when they mean " cardinal bird", and the other uses are minor. The present Cardinal should therefore become "Cardinal (disambiguation)", which I have also proposed there — Johnbod 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Image:Mitrescola.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use ... [remainder of notice removed] BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there no list of Cardinals on Wikipedia? Gavin Scott ( talk) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Although he is not a bishop, and so could not be assigned to one of the suburbicarian sees, he is entitled to wear the episcopal vestments and other pontificalia (episcopal regalia: mitre, crozier, pectoral cross and ring) and to possess a cardinalatial coat of arms.
I removed the "suburbicarian see part", since it is misleading: None of the Cardinal Deacons and Cardinal Priests are assigned to a suburbicarian see (even though the huge majority of them are bishops). Gugganij ( talk) 11:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As a non-bishop, he could not be (within the College of Cardinals) a cardinal bishop; he could only be a cardinal priest or cardinal deacon. A cardinal bishop of Roman title had title to a suburbicarian diocese (actual local-ordinary functions are assigned to other bishops per Pope John XXIII), but it was noted by Pope Francis last year that this needed expansion, so he provided this rank for 4 cardinals who, however, retained their current titular churches but now at suburbicarian rank. Carlm0404 ( talk) 06:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I replaced Stephen Kim Sou-hwan with Eugenio Sales de Araujo as the Protopriest in charge. The information was found on vatican.va. Nevertheless I'm not sure any more, if this edit was correct. Serveral other sources, claim Kim as Protopriest. Can anyone excplain (and proof) whether age or the order of creation within the consistory counts for internal ranking? Kim was #20 on the list, Sales #22. -- Heraklitcnl ( talk) 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a number of edits today removing significant information from the article that does not appear elsewhere in the Wiki, as far as I can tell. Is there some reason this is being done out of tbe blue with no prior discussion?-- Dcheney ( talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The history section does not tell us when and why the first cardinals came into existence. They are not mentioned in the Bible or early Christian history. Could someone supply this? APW ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The article could maybe explain that the word Cardinal is sometimes misused by writers that are talking about any monsignor, any prelate or any employee of the Roman Curia. The idea is that since certain bishops and monsignors dress in red, therefore all these bishops and monsignors must be Cardinals. But, this is obviously a factual inaccuracy. ADM ( talk) 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What is this about monsignor? Ignoring some countries' use of "monsignor" to also refer to a bishop (who isn't Cardinal or Pope), a monsignor's formal garb has some resemblance to that of a bishop (notice the color PURPLE) but leaving off pontifical insignia such as pectoral cross.
I have removed the "Popular culture" section. It was basically a list of "Actor X played Cardinal Y in movie Z", which brings very little, and is contrary to WP policy on popular culture (where actual effects, influences, and truly notable portrayals may be relevant). 94.220.245.253 ( talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Would 1995hoo please explain what justification there is for deleting the sourced edit that shows that two authoritative secular stylebooks and one Catholic ecclesiastical one declare that the proper way in present-day English to refer to a cardinal is as Cardinal John Smith, rather than than John Cardinal Smith? Is it not an objective fact, documented by cited reliable sources, that "important secular stylebooks indicate that in present-day English the 'Cardinal John Doe' order is the one to use when referring to cardinals"? Lima ( talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I need some help sorting this out. I understand that Pope Paul VI introduced a mandatory retirement age of 70 for priests and 75 for bishops and archbishops. But what about cardinals? Do they just go on forever? Or, all being at least bishops these days before their elevation to cardinal, are they subject to the 75-year rule for bishops? Ratzinger was over 75 when elected pope, and he had certainly not retired.
Then, there's the rule about who can take part in the conclave: cardinals over the age of 80 are ineligible to vote. That suggests that at least those cardinals over 75, but not yet 80, are still working. So it looks like the mandatory retirement age does not apply to cardinals, or if there is one, it doesn't cut in till at least 80. But this is just about voting in the conclave, not about whether they maintain their duties generally speaking. Further, I've seen nothing that says a cardinal aged over 80 is ineligible to be elected as pope, just ineligible to take part in the voting.
Can someone clarify all this for me? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
For your information, by the time Pope Benedict XVI retired, the rule for eligibilty in a conclave is that you had to be under age 80 when the papacy became vacant. Cardinal Walter Kasper met that requirement, and participated in the ensuing conclave (which elected Pope Francis) although he turned 80 before that conclave started. Cardinal Kasper is not eligible to participate in subsequent conclaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Bishop (or Archbishop) of a diocese, even if he's Cardinal, must offer his retirement when he reaches 75, but said offer does not have to be ACCEPTED right then. Cardinals who serve as curia deparment heads give that up at 80, and all Cardinals cease as conclave electors at age 80 if it comes during a pontificate; notice above that Walter Kasper reached 80 after Pope Benedict XVI stepped down. The conclave is not to be scheduled to include or exclude a Cardinal who happens to be very close to the age limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The traditional form of a cardinal's title has been established for centuries upon centuries. Some editors have made unconvincing arguments for why we ought to depart from that form in favor of a novel form advanced (primarily by secular stylebooks and modernist clergy) over the last few decades. It is obvious that we should not. Nor is BRD is a useful model here, because the debate has already played itself out ad nauseum over several years; a glance at the talk page above will show that. I see nothing to be gained from another round of that argument, another round in which those who want to depart from the traditional usage will advance the same tired arguments which those who prefer to get it right will continue to find unpersuasive. Those arguments do not become more attractive with the passage of time; in fact, to some extent, it's just the opposite. Tradition is the yardstick by which "correct" is measured, not the house style of the associated press, and the traditional form is clear. We should stick with it. (Nor, by the way, was the revert performed appropriate since it threw ought both changes you didn't like and unobjectionable changes. I urge you to work granularly if you must work at all.) - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the best way to handle the wording here? I support Esoglau's edit a moment ago, but as his source notes, B16 increased the number of voting Cardinals to 121 for two months, and the concern of a conclave happening between 11/20/10 and 1/20/26 became moot almost a month ago. Shouldn't the text reflect that in some way?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You probably know that, even with no deaths, the number of electors will gradually decrease as cardinals reach 80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It is noted that, in place of imposing the red hat, "investiture now takes place with the scarlet biretta". Could someone write about the earlier conferring of the red biretta? For example, in some countries the head of state conferred the red biretta; there was a case as late as the 1960s where this was done (the head of state was Francisco Franco of Spain). An earlier case of head-of-state conferral was in 1914 on new cardinal Janos Csernoch by Archduke Franz Ferdinand, filling in for the aged (over 80) Emperor Franz Josef I; Franz Ferdinand was assassinated a month later (the immediate cause of what we know as World War I). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If you know who the cardinal is, you might check out the FIU cardinals site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Try Cardinal Csernoch, whom I already mentioned above. The FIU cardinals site and that cardinal's article on wikipedia both have the red biretta being conferred by Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Also, look up Pope John XXIII; as Cardinal Roncalli, he received the red biretta from President Vincent Auriol of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis announced that he will hold his first Consistory to Create New Cardinals on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter (22 February 2014). No names or even a number of new cardinals was mentioned.-- Dcheney ( talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
today at the UN there were people wearing cardinal vestments but the hats were different colors: some were red and some were purple, why the difference ? John5Russell3Finley ( talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Did the men with purple hats also wear purple robes? The purple and red robes might very well be similar except in color. I assume the hat would be a biretta; a Cardinal's would NOT have a tuft on the top, but a purple one would. (I saw somewhere that the Patriarch of Venice gets to wear red even if he isn't Cardinal, so his biretta has red tuft unless he IS Cardinal!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholicism) → Cardinal (Catholic Church) – WP:CONSISTENCY: Priesthood (Catholic Church), Bishop (Catholic Church), and Holy Orders (Catholic Church) specifically, as well as the wider convention of using "(Catholic Church)" for parenthetical disambiguations of Catholic Church–related articles. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 01:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.archdioceseofcolombo.com/2_1.php,{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3196655.eceWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. The nomination may or not be frivolous, but it is kind of malformed in the sense that no evidence was given to prove that this is a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; you gotta prove that something is the primary topic instead of just claiming it without. As for the actual debate on whether primary topic status is achieved or not, then, well, that more of a no consensus. No prejudice to another RM iff there is actual evidence to support the move. ( non-admin closure) Sky Warrior 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholic Church) → Cardinal – WP:Primarytopic. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Were catholic cardinals forbidden to marry. Were they supposed to be celibate? If so, please add this to the information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.228.45 ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved.( non-admin closure) Kostas20142 ( talk) 09:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholic Church) →
Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church – Since previous above request "
Cardinal" in reference to
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC didn't meet consensus before the birdy - "X (Catholic Church)" used to be a recurrent formula, but has since been replaced with the formula "
Prayer in the Catholic Church", etc. However, not sure "Cardinal in the Catholic Church makes sense. Therefore, proposal per
WP:Consistency in accordance with
Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 04:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Cardinal (Catholic Church) → Cardinal in the Catholic Church – Tryng this one, since the X (Y) article name formula seems to wain towards deprication. Per WP:Consistency with Mass in the Catholic Church, Priesthood in the Catholic Church, etc. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cardinal (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stylebook/stylebooksample.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I just wrote this in making a change in the Wikipedia page of Cardinal Reinhard Marx: > Normally, I discourage use of "Cardinal Archbishop". Directly under Reinhard Marx' name at top of this Wikipedia entry, notice COMMA between those 2 words. This provides for his being a Cardinal Priest within the ranks of College of Cardinals. In a local setting away from Rome, there may indeed be usage of "Cardinal Archbishop", which there would remind people that this particular Archbishop is concurrently a Cardinal. There was a case where I discovered use of this in a church-related program which had been uploaded; it described someone as secretary to the Cardinal Archbishop. Carlm0404 ( talk) 06:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that there are only a handful of Cardinal Bishops, shouldn't the section just name them? - Chieharumachi ( talk) 04:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The section affrims:
Cardinal priests are the most numerous of the three orders of cardinals in the Catholic Church, ranking above the cardinal deacons and below the cardinal bishops.
Though it is sourced, the proposition is completely false. As of 2021, the Roman Catholic Church has no more than three cardinals whi aren't (yey) consacrated as bishops (source: [11]). This practice doesn't observe canon n° 351 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which is still in force. it states that:
The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
The number of cardinal priests is so limited just because it needs a specific pontifical waiver which, according to the norm, shall be justified exclusively in exceptional cases of:
Special:Contributions/94.38.236.159 ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) 10:29 28 March 2021
I propose merging Prince of the Church into Cardinal (Catholic Church). The former appears to simply be an occasionally-used historical title for the latter. Moriwen ( talk) 22:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)