Bishop VS cardinal

[AH020387]

What is the difference between a ‘bishop’ and a ‘cardinal’?

[Barb_D]

They are different ranks in the Catholic church. Many Web sites can explain this. Additionally, other religions have bishops (Anglicans, to name one) but I don't think cardinals exist outside of the Catholic (and perhaps Eastern Orthodox?) religions.

[JIM1984]

They are different ranks in the Catholic church. Many Web sites can explain this. Additionally, other religions have bishops (Anglicans, to name one) but I don't think cardinals exist outside of the Catholic (and perhaps Eastern Orthodox?) religions.

They do! There used be a London outfit called the 101'ers, which was made up of members who would later gain renown as The Clash. The band had two cardinals or three if count the 0. Only would the figures have been known as ordinals had the band been called the one zero one'ers. I hope this has proved helpful.

[SoothingDave]

What is the difference between a ‘bishop’ and a ‘cardinal’?

In the Catholic Church, every local church (called a "diocese") is headed by a bishop. By "local" I mean the church is divided into regions. Not each particular church building ("parish"), but the Church as a whole is divided into local churches. For instance, there are several hundred local churches (dioceses) in the USA. Each one is headed by a bishop and all bishops are the "boss" of their local church, answering to the Pope.

That said, important local churches, like in major cities, have a sort of titular status "over" churches in their area. So Philadelphia is the major church of Pennsylvania, Los Angeles the major church in California, etc. The bishops of these are known as "arch-bishops."

Arch-bishops are usually granted the status of "Cardinal" which means they are one of the most respected and experienced bishops of the Church. The Pope is the one who decides who becomes a Cardinal. He may bestow this upon anyone. But, as I said, important bishops normally become cardinals. It would be unseemly, for example, if Washington DC was headed by a bishop who was not a Cardinal, since DC is the capital of the country.

Cardinals have the task of electing a new pope upon the death of the current pope.

So, to recap, a bishop is the Pope's man chosen to lead the church in a particular area. A Cardinal is a bishop who is the head of an important area, or has otherwise been honored for his service to the Church. Cardinals elect the new pope.

[JIM1984]

What is the difference between a ‘bishop’ and a ‘cardinal’?

Sorry, with regard to yourself. I didn't really mean to be flippant; temptation got the better of me! Still, it might make interesting reading for foreign students and so on.

[birdeen's call]

They are different ranks in the Catholic church. Many Web sites can explain this. Additionally, other religions have bishops (Anglicans, to name one) but I don't think cardinals exist outside of the Catholic (and perhaps Eastern Orthodox?) religions.

The Orthodox Church doesn't have cardinals.

[BobK]

...
So, to recap, a bishop is the Pope's man chosen to lead the church in a particular area. A Cardinal is a bishop who is the head of an important area, or has otherwise been honored for his service to the Church. Cardinals elect the new pope.

And to add to the fun, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

b

[Coolfootluke]

I am not a teacher.

And for today's useless trivia, "episcopal" is the adjective for "bishop".

[birdeen's call]

And to add to the fun, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

b

This is not so simple. Take a look at David Bawden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, especially this part:

Another claim is that since Bawden does not possess Episcopal orders, he cannot be Bishop of Rome, which is the primary or underlying office of the Papacy: one becomes Bishop of Rome, and as a consequence, Pope. But this claim is countered by the unanimous opinion of Catholic Canonists who teach that a Pope becomes Pope immediately after accepting the Office after the election, after the elected says "I accept," not after reception of Holy Orders. The concept is complex in that the Episcopal Office (Office of Bishop) is divided into two powers, that of Jurisdiction, and that of Orders. Jurisdiction can be had licitly without Order, but Order can not be had licitly without Jurisdiction. So, "Pope Michael" has a claim to jurisdiction, but no claim to Order, since he accepted his Office after their election, but has not yet received Holy Orders. Reception of Orders usually follows soon thereafter (if Orders were not already received), but an impediment to reception of Orders out of the control of the respective jurisdiction would not invalidate the jurisdiction, because Jurisdiction governs Order, Order does not govern Jurisdiction.

This guy is not even a priest, let alone bishop.

[BobK]

Tell that to the canon lawyers! This seems to me to be a matter of the old legal saying 'Hard cases make bad law'.