What is a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church?

N*. A body formed originally of the principal ecclesiastics of Rome, of different ranks in the hierarchy, by a decree of Nicolas in 1059 to elect the pope, a right enjoyed up to that time by all at Rome, and which had led to all sorts of tumults, violence, and bloodshed, and to appease the opposition of the rest added to by Alexander III. Others, perhaps, have added to them, and now many out of Rome are named. They form a kind of court to the pope; they have the highest rank in the papal system, though not necessarily in the episcopacy, as they are from the various orders of the hierarchy.

On the death of Damasus II, Leo IX succeeded, a very respectable man, a German, sent by the Eraperor, chosen at Worms, but who, it appears, only took the place on condition of the people and clergy of Rome confirming it. Victor II succeeded, also a German, under the influence of Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory VII; after him Stephen X of Lorraine. Then the Romans chose Benedict X; but Damianus and other cardinals left Rome, and chose another, Nicholas II, who was settled in the see by the Emperor's power, and Benedict degraded. And Nicholas first settled the popes should be chosen by the cardinals. These popes were Germans, and at least decent people. On the death of Nicholas there was great conflict for the papacy. Alexander was chosen, supposing it would please the imperial court. But the Emperor was not content. Another was chosen; the Emperor came with an army but was defeated, and in the Council of Mantua a compromise was made, and Alexander was sole pope. Cadulous (Honorius II) does not count in the list.

62 In this century it was that the popes, who, after the gradual increase of their power, had become infamous in their conduct - so that the Romans had deposed them, and the Emperor of Germany named new ones, and then there had been two fighting for the place - enforced, in the person of Gregory VII, called Hildebrand, universal celibacy on the clergy. It had been long nominally required; but the great body of them being, in fact, married, were now forced to put away their wives: and, though Gregory died an exile from Rome, he succeeded in depriving the emperors of the right of confirming the election of the pope, and established the celibacy of the clergy. Another very important change commenced in this century was the election of the pope by the cardinals, instead of by the whole clergy, nobles, and people. The confirmation by the emperor was however reserved, and of the people; that of the emperor was set aside by Gregory VII, indeed, by Alexander II, in whose time however there was an antipope. Gregory was chosen by acclamation, and confirmed by the emperor, and then began his work of setting the papacy above all human powers. He claimed from all kings their holding their crowns from him. William the Conqueror and others refused; some were glad to act on it, as Naples, Croatia, and, strange to say, Russia.

300 Baronius admits that in some cases there was no choice or consent of the clergy whatever. To avoid the crimes committed, for a long time the Emperor put them in; then, when more free from the Imperial power, to avoid these things it was put in the cardinals' hands, and, as their ambition and jealousies sometimes kept the system without any head for several years, or two were named, they settled that two-thirds must concur, and they were to be shut up till they had a sufficient majority; and this is still the rule. It is said that, after the death of Innocent IV in Naples, the governor shut the cardinals up in the house he died in till they elected one. But, however absurd resting the certainty of one's faith and the continuance of grace on such a history, it is utterly impossible to base apostolic succession on it. We shall find papal breaches in the succession yet wider in the next century, and two or three popes at a time excommunicating one another, and then all deposed.

Roman Catholic edicts are not really made by “the church” — by all the people who compose it — but by a select council of cardinals who call themselves “The Church” and who use the pope as their “infallible” mouthpiece. What tremendous power a few men can hold over the spiritually ignorant masses of deceived adherents!

In sub-apostolic times leaders in the churches began to assume a position in virtue of their gift. Soon appointment was substituted for gift. They became officers of the church rather than gifts of the ascended Christ. Among them some soon asserted priority of rank. And thus, from what seemed to be but a trifling divergence from apostolic precept and practice, a hierarchy has arisen consisting of various grades of "clergy," from the humble curate up to the almost regal monseigneurs, archbishops and cardinals: "princes of the church" as they are fittingly termed.

Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and all the multifarious hierarchy of popedom were appointed by the Pope on condition that he was well paid for doing so. These men were under his power, and, even among the sovereigns of the nations, few were found that dared to disobey him.

In the mean time Serra Longa returned to him with the message, "Come, the cardinal is waiting for you," and then he told Luther how to behave in the cardinal's presence. "You must prostrate yourself with your face to the ground. When he tells you to rise you must kneel before him; and you must not stand erect till he orders you to do so. Remember it is before a prince of the church you are about to appear." Alas! surely the apostle Paul would not have required or allowed such degradation from a fellow Christian! If the Legate required this, what would the pope want?

The overseers of the Bible are one thing; the bishops of the present day with mitre, cope, chasuble, alb, pastoral staff, often ornamented with precious stones, with their sacerdotal jurisdiction, their stately palaces, their seat in the House of Lords, quite another thing. All their worldly pomp and ritual is far removed from the simplicity and unworldliness of the Scriptures. Indeed, the whole system is a copy of Judaism and Paganism in many of its features. We read in Scripture of overseers, elders, deacons, a holy priesthood, but where do we get pope, cardinal, archbishop, archdeacons, canon, reverend? The word “reverend” is only applied to God in the Scriptures, and yet man dares to adopt it as a title of his own.

There is no mention of a Pope, bishop, cardinal, priest, nor of what we see in the ecclesiastical arrangements of non-conformity: no "Pastor," nor mention of "the oversight." No such institution or committee exists in Scripture, though doubtless there were overse­ers in the true sense. Nor is there any reference to service conducted in relation to some para-church organisation. All is centred around Christ and directed according to His will. Shall we then join something which will compromise the special place of being simply Christians? We learn something of primitive Christi­anity from this section, not only from what is included but from those things to which Paul never refers. The so-called "Church of Rome" has long departed from the simplicity of these things but so has much of Protestantism. Alas, many who once professed to live by these truths recovered by the Lord to His church, are now returning to the confusion of Babylon. There is no reference in the epistle to Peter as having founded the Christian faith and church at Rome, or as being present there at the time of writing which was around 60 A.D.