Archbishop Porteous of Hobart

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
25 August 2013 00:03
 

http://exarandorum.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/image2.jpg?w=487

The coat of arms of the Most Rev. Julian Porteous, up until now the auxiliary bishop of Sydney, Australia who has been promoted to be the (non Metropolitan) Archbishop of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. He will be installed on September 17th. The Archbishop decided to re-design his current coat of arms, assumed at the time he was named auxiliary bishop, to bring them into better harmony when impaled with the arms of the See of Hobart. Archbishop Julian’s original arms were: “Quarterly, Vert and Or, a cross throughout Counterchanged; in dexter chief a dove rising surrounded by a golden effulgence and in sinister base an open book Argent, bound Or charged with the Greek letters Alpha and Omega Gules”.

 

In the redesign he has retained the dove representing the Holy Spirit and requested in be surrounded by rays suggesting the famous Bernini window above the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter’s Basilica. In addition the open book alluding to the Sacred Scriptures has been retained. Thus showing the heraldic equivalent of Grace (the Holy Spirit) and Truth (the Word of God).

 

The new blazon is: “Arms impaled. In the dexter Azure the letter “M” Argent crowned with a celestial crown Or (Hobart); In the sinister per fess Gules and Argent, in chief a sun in splendor, the rays of light depicted as straight lines radiating to the edge of the field, within a ring all Or, charged overall with a dove displayed affronté Argent; in base an open book Argent, bound Gules and charged on the pages with the letters alpha and omega, Gules”.

 

The arms were designed by me and Mr. Richard d’Apice of Australia and depicted by Mr. Sandy Turnbull, also of Australia.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 August 2013 01:02
 

Nice!

While I’m not keen on clerics changing their personal arms with every new clerical appointment or promotion, that’s just my personal hang-up; and that personal grumble aside, the new personal arms are both interesting and attractive, and sure to be unique.  Hopefully he will find them adequate for impalement in any future reassignments or promotions.

 

In the diocesan arms, is there (or should there be) some term of blazonry to indicate the crossing of the middle leg of the M? or for the particular shape of the M with a vertical middle leg rather than the V of a standard M as in John Paul’s arms?  Or is that just an optional bit of artistic license?

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2013 21:14
 

Why was Hobart promoted from a diocese to an archdiocese (in 1888, if I’m reading this right) if it didn’t get any suffragan dioceses?  Isn’t having suffragan dioceses pretty much the definition of an archdiocese?  Clearly I missed a chapter in school…  :confused:

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
26 August 2013 00:04
 

steven harris;100394 wrote:

Isn’t having suffragan dioceses pretty much the definition of an archdiocese?


No, it isn’t. The definition of an archdiocese is that the pope says its an archdiocese. There are 77 archiepiscopal sees in the world that are not also metropolitan sees.

 

But, that has nothing to do with heraldry or this coat of arms.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
26 August 2013 00:08
 

Michael F. McCartney;100392 wrote:

Hopefully he will find them adequate for impalement in any future reassignments or promotions.


He’s already 64 (bishops retire at 75) and he’s just been promoted to archbishop. There probably won’t be any other promotions.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
27 August 2013 03:46
 

Point taken; though might it be possible for him to be moved to another/larger archdiocese?  (just curious)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 August 2013 07:53
 

I would guess that the reason Hobart is an archdiocese (other than because the Pope says so) is that it’s a state capital.  Six of the seven Catholic archdioceses in Australia are seated in the capital cities of the six states:  Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart.  The seventh is in the national capital, Canberra.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
27 August 2013 08:13
 

I think that the new design is very nice.

The old design ("Quarterly Vert and Or, a cross counterchanged…") was nice as well.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
27 August 2013 13:23
 

Joseph McMillan;100403 wrote:

I would guess that the reason Hobart is an archdiocese (other than because the Pope says so) is that it’s a state capital.  Six of the seven Catholic archdioceses in Australia are seated in the capital cities of the six states:  Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart.  The seventh is in the national capital, Canberra.


I doubt it. Hobart was in a British colony and wasn’t a state capital until 1901 when the colonies federated to form Australia. But there has been an archbishop in Hobart since 1888. In 1888, when Bishop Murphy, only the second bishop of Hobart, celebrated the 50th Anniversary of his Priesthood, the Holy See named him a titular Archbishop. Since Archbishop Murphy’s death in 1907, eight Archbishops, including the present Prelate, have governed the See of Hobart. So, it really was very much a matter of "because the pope said so". Besides, that still doesn’t answer the question of why it is an archdiocese without being a Metropolitan See. The point being that the two terms are not synonymous.

 

The fact that the archdioceses in Australia are located in state capitals has more to do with the relatively few number of large cities in Australia. It is the size or antiquity of a diocese that usually determines whether or not it is made an archdiocese, not the function of the city. If that were the case then Sacramento would be an archdiocese rather than LA or San Francisco; Albany would be rather than NY; Annapolis would be rather than Baltimore; Springfield in Illinois (the seat of a diocese) rather than Chicago, etc.

 

The only exception I can think of is in the case of national capitals. Washington, DC and Canberra being two notable examples. Both are relatively small dioceses compared with others in their countries but they are, nevertheless, archdioceses simply because the national capital is located within them. Interesting to note that while Canberra is an archdiocese it, too, is a non-Metropolitan archdiocese.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
27 August 2013 13:24
 

Michael F. McCartney;100402 wrote:

Point taken; though might it be possible for him to be moved to another/larger archdiocese?  (just curious)


Anything is possible, however unlikely.