A missed opportunity

 
Guido
 
Avatar
 
 
Guido
Total Posts:  21
Joined  16-05-2005
 
 
 
30 June 2006 15:31
 

Dear Friends,

Maria Cristina Sintoni, an Italian ceramist and heraldist (her interesting website is http://www.faenzaraldica.com), drew this shield for the crest of card. Zen.

http://www.webalice.it/buldrini/Iagi/Zen-new.jpg

Suddenly the Bishop of Hog Kong changed idea and sent me the following message:
Quote:

Together with the rev. Parish Priest we went to the advice that is enough to include in the shield the tree prominences without modifying too much the original drawing in order to maintain his dynamic sense.

+ Joseph Card. Zen, sdb

My answer was:
Quote:

The crest is your and must be done as you say. Anyway, not only in my opinion, the anchor in bend sinister (as the deacon’s stole), separating the ship from the columns, misrepresenting the dream of don Bosco, and with the waves over seems an aircraft fallen in the sea. This ignoring the Madonna, blue ... as the "Smurfs“.

I think that the card. Zen lost an opportunity for a more correct crest and the one in his website http://archives.catholic.org.hk/administrators/zen.htm is as it was…

But what is in heraldry the dynamic sense? Ciao!

Guido

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
30 June 2006 20:14
 

I’m sorry, but as I said in the previous thread on this at the old MB this is an absolutely horrible coat of arms and I use the term lightly - from the design, to the implementation of Don Bosco’s dream, to everything. What a shame.

I had an OK idea for them and Joe McMillan had an even better idea and I think there was another person who had an idea on them as well that was good.

 

Really bad stuff and if this and His Holiness’s arms are any indication of where Church heraldry is going (which I think it is not with the likes of Fr. Guy and Fr. Archer out there) we are in for a long, long period of ugly arms…sorry.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 July 2006 11:55
 

Other than the choice of headgear to ensign the shield, what is wrong with the Pope’s arms?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
01 July 2006 12:13
 

1) No papal crown

2) A child-like version of a mitre (when other bishops are not allowed to ensign their arms with a mitre anymore, so this makes no sense whatsoever) with the novelty of the crossed gold bars, etc.

3) Episcopal pall (sp?) beneath the shield

The arms themselves are great. The rest is novelties. I am waiting for the day a future pope decides to do away with St. Peter’s keys, as they don’t want to look to judgmental or some other nonsense - and I can see that day coming.

 

Don’t get me wrong as I love the pope and his coat of arms means very little in terms of his shepherding us Catholics. However, it does set, IMHO, a very dangerous precedent and breaks with good tradition (small “t” intentional) for no valid reason – again IMHO.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
01 July 2006 13:53
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

Other than the choice of headgear to ensign the shield, what is wrong with the Pope’s arms?


It’s not like the cavalier decision to ignore hundreds of years of tradition by simply ambandoning the papal tiara is a small thing. Nevertheless, in addition to that the inclusion of the pallium, again a break with tradition in papal heraldry, is also a bad idea. It was done to emphasize the fact that the recently redesigned so-called "Papal Pallium" is the symbol of pastoral authority which certain parties in the Vatican want to be the focus of attention. This is using heraldry to promote a private agenda which is rather inappropriate. Besides, the tiara and keys remain the symbol of the papacy. But now we have a pope who will use the keys in his arms but not the tiara. That’s like the next king of England saying that while the crown remains the symbol of monarchy his personal arms will only use the supporters as external ornaments and he doesn’t want to use the crown anymore because that’s too "old fashioned".

 

In addition, the inclusion of the Moor’s Head in the exact same place and with the exact same tinctures as it is used as a kind of "diocesan arms" for Munich & Freising is a bad idea. Popes should not retain diocesan arms in their personal arms. The examples of Popes Pius X, John XXIII and John Paul I using the lion of Venice from their days as patriarch there are examples of bad design as well. They were wrong and so is the Moor’s Head in the arms of Benedict XVI.

 

While we know that heraldry need not be slavishly copied over and over we also know that frequently with the arms of great persons they are. So just as the arms of Queen Elizabeth may be depicted in various artistic styles there is still an "official version" many feel that the published version of the Pope’s arms is the official one which must be meticulously copied exactly as it appears in its original rendering. That’s very sad indeed because the artwork of the official rendering is mediocre beyond belief! I also agree with what has been said that the next thing to be attacked in papal heraldry will be the keys since they are symbols of authority. The present Pope’s arms depicts the keys almost as afterthoughts. They are thin and look like they could barely open a piece of luggage let alone the gates to the kingdom of heaven.

 

I find it interesting that one used to see Pope John Paul II’s coat of arms emblazoned everywhere and on everything. Pope Benedict is very popular as well but his arms do not appear as much because they lack the simplicity and boldness that are the earmarks of good heraldry.

 

The Pope’s arms were designed poorly, they were rendered poorly and they flagrantly flout tradition. Many people simply find them unattractive. That’s what’s wrong with them.

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
01 July 2006 15:34
 

In "heraldry in the catholic church" Heim writes that it was probably ignorance in the case of Pope Pius X, but that John XXIII exactly knew what he was doing and that John Paul I just wanted his arms to resemble those of John XXIII and Paul VI because of his name. Why John XXIII wanted to retain the arms which he had as patriarch of Venice is not exactly known but a reason might be that he designed the arms himself.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
01 July 2006 16:32
 

I didn’t even think of that good father. He shouldn’t have a diocesan coat of arms for a diocese he is no longer the bishop of. That is totally inappropriate. In fact to my mind it seems rather like usurping the rights of the bishop of that see heraldically speaking of course. If I were that bishop I might take offense to that, for as the Holy Father is my spiritual head I would be the same for my diocese and it would be like him infringing on my rights as that sees bishop. I guess it would be like say the archbishop of Denver taking the tiara and keys and placing them with his arms. Heraldically speaking certain things belong to certain people and one should not ‘nick’ them so to speak. The design of the arms proper is nice, however, but you are right on the appropriateness of them. And the rest of it, with all dues respect to his holiness, is in rather poor taste.

 
Guido
 
Avatar
 
 
Guido
Total Posts:  21
Joined  16-05-2005
 
 
 
02 July 2006 09:08
 

I agree with Fr. Selvester and Donnchadh. I live in Rome and Benedict XVI is the Pope because he is the bishop of my city. So why does he retain the diocesan arms of Munich and Freising? When card. Döpfner moved there from Berlin he didn’t hold the arms of his previous diocese… Anyway I have something to add for all the figures.

Moor - Count Aymard of Saint-Saud, in his ”Armorial of the French prelates”, 1906, says a serious lack of respect to use in his own crest the image of the Lord, of the Virgin or of a Saint: but the “Moor” is St. Maurice:

http://www.webalice.it/buldrini/Iagi/Mori.jpg

 

Bear - Cardinal Ratzinger identified himself in the bear of St. Corbinian: “I brought my luggage to Rome and from several years I walk with this load in the streets of the Eternal City” wrote in “La mia vita” (San Paolo Edizioni, 2005) so this animal should be the central figure of the shield but the bear is small, neither passant nor rampant but in bend: very strange!

 

Scallop Shell - The shell has three meanings: St. Augustine and the mystery of the Holy Trinity; the pilgrimage; the Schottenkloster in Regensburg, where he taught theology. Why a so big shell and not three small, for instance in a chief?

 

Ciao!

Guido

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
30 July 2006 20:41
 

Well, it was four weeks ago, but I’m just joining the fray. I’ll have to agree that both arms are pretty poorly executed.

Card. Zen’s appear to be almost municipal, not personal. And the comment that the anchor in bend appears to be a plane going down in the sea is right on the money. As for the smurfette on the pedestal…..:rolleyes:

 

The Pope’s arms, however, just seem to be a poor rendition of what could otherwise be acceptable, if not notable, arms. Were I asked for my opinion, I’d suggest that the bear be rampant and facing the other way, and that both the bear and head be smaller. The single scallop shell is best (as opposed to three), I think. From a design point of view (esp. if the other charges were a bit smaller) it becomes the focal point of the whole piece. The Moor of Freising and the Bear of Corbinian then become less important, but highly personal charges and the Church, the pilgrim people of God, takes a visual lead.

 

I’ll take issue with the comment about the tiara vs. mitre and the British crown. The crown of England is still used in coronation and is, therefore a very real and powerful symbol of royal authority. Should the king of England disuse the crown in his personal achievement, it would be symbolically tantamount to abdication. As would the failure to use the tiara or mitre for the papacy. If the papal tiara is no longer used then the mitre is, indeed, the corollary symbol for the Church of Rome and is, therefore, appropriate.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
31 July 2006 01:46
 

I’m afraid your analogy is a poor one. Every sovereign in the world uses a crown as a heraldic emblem and almost none of them are crowned or even wear a crown at any time. Heraldic symbols have, in reality, nothing to do with what is actually used for the office they signify. The mitre is inappropriate for the bishop of Rome because he has insignia that are particular to him. Namely the tiara and keys. These keys don’t even exist yet they are still used as a heraldic emblem.

This doesn’t even begin to address the issue of the mitre evolving into a heraldic symbol for dioceses and abbeys (in the Roman Church) and bishops and archbishops in the Anglican Church.

 

As for the artwork being done better you are right. A competent heraldic artist can make these are look better.

 

http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/3205/user/85362/315929.jpg

 

http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/3205/user/85362/315930.jpg

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
31 July 2006 16:02
 

All analogies are flawed, Fra. Guy, although I’ll bow to you on this one. I guess my analogy sprang from the comment that it was like the king of England deciding not to use the crown on his personal arms because it was ‘old fashioned’. While the mitre may not be the best choice, it at least is there as a symbol and so I found that analogy wanting and provided one just as wanting in its place.

But this brings up another question my my fervent (or is that fevered?) little mind: when the actual fact changes, shouldn’t the symbol change, too? If the tiara has been replaced, then why not substitute the actual symbol of power? And if the tiara is the thing, then why has it been abandoned?

 

I realize that this atitude is a bit like opening the henhouse door for the foxes, but isn’t the point of our organization that heraldry is a living and vital science, worthy of legal protection, etc. everywhere? If it’s alive, then it will and must change with the times, don’t you think?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
31 July 2006 16:46
 

Quote:

If it’s alive, then it will and must change with the times, don’t you think?


Yes and no. Look you will find few as "forward" thinking as I on matters heraldic (a glance at my posts will show this), however we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

In Catholicism, as in heraldry, there is very real meaning to symbols and the use of symbolism is a very important thing. There was no good, justifiable need to "do away with" one of the symbols of papal authority. I guarantee you that the keys are next. This is most disturbing for many Catholic, that is religious, reasons.

 

Now on the heraldic side of it the good Father’s analogy, as was his reply to you, was dead on. For example since the king of Spain did not have a coronation at his coronation why not do away with the crown over the arms - I mean it is progressive and a living change - right? I would say no way and I’m no where near a ‘monarchist’ in any form. Spain is a democratic monarchy. It ought to retain the heraldic symbolism of that monarchy even if this, or any future king, does not have an actual coronation where the crown is used.

 

The same is true of the Holy Father. He is the sovereign and his heraldic achievement should not be used as a means of advancing any - be it left leaning or right leaning - political, social, or theological agenda. Indeed His Holiness has, by either allowing through ignorance or intention, the hi-jacking of this symbol to play into the hands of those who very much favor an outright dissolving of, or at least a devolution of, papal authority. This, my dear brother, is very dangerous business on the one hand and pathetic on the other in that it is being played out in heraldic matters.

 

I think one would need to better understand the ‘issues’ within Catholicism to better understand the intention of and the clear message of those heraldic changes. Which, of course I do not claim to possess all of, but after having given four years of my life to discernment of a vocation in the priesthood I do have a very real, personal understanding of some, if not many, of the ‘issues’ that are currently at play in the Church – or at least by those in the Church, as the Church herself can’t engage in such.

 

And again…I am progressive heraldically speaking as they come.

8)

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
31 July 2006 22:02
 

Thanks, Donnchadh, that clears up a lot. I suppose I have some inkling of what’s happening: I left my church (Presbyterian) years ago when certain fundamental changes started occuring that I just couldn’t support. And I know Catholics who left their church after Vatican II because of those changes.

Knowing that a possible political agenda is being served by abandoning the tiara in fact & in heraldry makes a real difference, and of course, it is objectionable. There’s a real difference between a symbol changing with the times because the intrinsic meaning of the symbol has changed and using heraldy as a bully pulpit.

 
Edward Wenzl
 
Avatar
 
 
Edward Wenzl
Total Posts:  158
Joined  18-04-2006
 
 
 
31 July 2006 23:26
 

Granted the Pope’s CoA is decidedly nonconventional, but its still heraldic.

Check out the Arms for Maine, New York and Idaho.  These are fine nature paintings on shields, but certainly not heraldic.  Being on the high-churched side of Anglican, I recognize that members of the Roman Church are put out by the changes as well as they should be.  When I first saw the Pope’s Arms, my initial reaction was that that the Archbishop of Canterbury had a new CoA.

Then I saw that the CoA actually belonged to the Pope!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 August 2006 08:15
 

Maine’s arms as legally blazoned in 1820 are quite heraldic—"Argent, charged with a Pine Tree, a Moose-Deer, at the foot of it, recumbent."  Or, as I would blazon it, "Argent a moose lodged at the foot of a pine tree proper."  The only problem is a late 19th century (1880) style of emblazonment that takes too great liberties with the blazon.

New York’s arms began with a relatively simple design, albeit in the late 18th century landscape genre.  Quoting myself from the Flags of the World site, "the arms of the state ...  had originally been developed in 1777 and officially adopted by law on 16 March 1778 as "A rising sun over three mountains; motto underneath ‘Excelsior.’" This blazon obviously does not mention the vessels on the river, or even the river itself. Early depictions, up to the time of the Civil War, do consistently show the river but not the ships or the near river bank in the base of the shield. The one exception, a depiction used on military commissions during the Revolutionary period, was the model used in 1880 [to develop the present official blazon of the arms], which was subsequently approved by an 1882 act of the state legislature as the arms’ ‘permanent design and legal form.’ This blazon was amended slightly in 1896 to its present wording."

 

That present legal blazon is "Azure, in a landscape, the sun in fess, rising in splendor or, behind a range of three mountains, the middle one the highest; in base a ship and sloop under sail, passing and about to meet on a river, bordered below by a grassy shore fringed with shrubs, all proper."

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
25 April 2007 23:54
 

gselvester;616 wrote:

It’s not like the cavalier decision to ignore hundreds of years of tradition by simply ambandoning the papal tiara is a small thing….


Here is an article in the LA times that mentions this debate:

 

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/04/whats_the_miter.html


Quote:

latimes.com Opinion LA blog

« Gun on Gun Action | Main | In today’s pages »

What’s the miter?

 

As I mentioned in a recent post, a lot is being made—too much, I think—of the fact that all five Supreme Court justices in the majority in the "partial-birth" abortion case are Catholics. Predictably, at least one editorial cartoonist was unable to resist the temptation to portray the Catholic five as wearing bishops’ miters. Equally predictably, the head of the Catholic League has jumped on the cartoon.

 

What was interesting to this former altar boy was that the Catholic League described the miter as a “papal hat.” Yes, the pope can be seen wearing a miter (though not the skyscraper model that went out of fashion after Vatican II). But the miter is not a peculiarly papal chapeau. It is worn by every Catholic bishop—not to mention Anglican ones.

 

The distinctive papal hat is the bejeweled tiara or "triple crown" that was retired when Pope John Paul I simplified what used to be called the papal "coronation." The tiara hung on in papal heraldry for a while after that, but in Benedict XVI’s coat of arms it has been replaced by the relatively humble miter.

 

Conservative Catholics, who are eagerly awaiting an order by Benedict permitting wider use of the Latin Mass, would love to see the tiara make a comeback, too. So, I suspect, would editorial cartoonists.