I have two questions regarding the crosses that bishops use behind their shields – I want to call this a processional cross, but I think that’s incorrect.

1st

Bishops use a cross with one horizontal bar, while archbishops use a cross with two horizontal bars.  What happens in the case of a diocese lead by an archbishop?  Would he use two bars or one?  I note that this is not simply theoretical, the Diocese of Cleveland (a suffragan of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati) has been led by two archbishops in the past – Joseph Schrembs (1921–1945, created archbishop in 1939), and Edward Francis Hoban (1945–1966, created archbishop in 1951).

2nd

Do coadjutor and auxiliary (arch)bishops get to use crosses as well, or is it limited to the metropolitan/ordinary of the see?

Fr. Guy will be able to iron out any wrinkles in this explanation, but I hope this helps.

Re: 1—-You are correct that it is not, technically, a processional cross. The proper term slips my mind at the moment, but it is a cross of state. It designates the status of the person as a bishop.

Way back when, papal legates had the privilege of being immediately preceded by a cross different from any cross leading the procession. If I recall correctly, the corpus faced the legate and not forward as a processional cross. Eventually, this privilege was extended to archbishops and bishops. Not having my books with me, I can’t tell you when the double-bar and single-bar distinction came about.

Typically, a person is an archbishop by virtue of being bishop of an archdiocese. (Most archdioceses are metropolitan archdioceses meaning they have suffragan dioceses—-e.g. Cincinnati has Cleveland—-though some historically important sees in Europe hold the designation as an honor while, in fact, being suffragan to another archdiocese—-e.g. Avignon which is a suffragan to Marseille—-these are not metropolitan sees.) The designation can also come from a now-defunct archdiocese, i.e. a titular archdiocese, such as the Archdiocese of Oregon City, suppressed in 1928. A bishop can, however, be designated an archbishop ad personam, i.e. personally, which is to say its a personal honor not stemming from the see he holds. This was the case with Cleveland’s two archbishops. Because the cross designates their personal status, they would use a double-bar cross behind their personal arms.

In the case of archbishops who have the title by virtue of their see, they keep the title and cross even after they retire or transfer up into a curial position in Rome. This is because they remain archbishop-emeritus of their old see. This, for example, is the case with Archbishop Raymond Burke… though the title cardinal masks the title of archbishop. In the old days, it’s my understanding, that an archbishop would be given a titular archdiocese after he had lost his territorial archdiocese so as to be able to keep the status. If a bishop is merely going from one see to another, he takes the status of his new see… though to be honest, I’ve never heard of one being transferred down from archdiocese to diocese, so I don’t know what would happen to his title in that case. Fr. Guy can fill us in on that one.

Re: 2—-Coadjutor bishops, auxiliary bishops, and titular bishops likewise use a cross because they are bishops.

Dcgb7f;96753 wrote:

Re: 2—-Coadjutor bishops, auxiliary bishops, and titular bishops likewise use a cross because they are bishops.

I figured that the use of the cross might have been restricted to ordinaries, as a symbol of their authority, and so as to distinguish them (their arms, at least) from auxiliary and titular bishops.  If that were true, I wasn’t sure how a coadjutor would have been handled.  But that all seems to be moot.  Thanks!

steven harris;96759 wrote:

I figured that the use of the cross might have been restricted to ordinaries, as a symbol of their authority, and so as to distinguish them (their arms, at least) from auxiliary and titular bishops. If that were true, I wasn’t sure how a coadjutor would have been handled. But that all seems to be moot. Thanks!

Their arms are distinguishable from those of ordinaries by the latters’ right to marshal the arms of the diocese.  Auxiliaries don’t have that right.

The cross used in a coat of arms denoting that the bearer is a bishop is called an episcopal cross. In the case of an archbishop it may be referred to as an archiepiscopal cross but sometimes the confusing term patriarchal cross is used to denote a cross with two horizontal bars.

Originally, the privilege of ensigning the coat of arms with a cross was given to metropolitan archbishops. The use of a cross by papal legates that Daniel mentions above was also true but that was a separate issue and not usually reflected heraldically. Cardinal Wolsey, for example, had two crosses borne immediately in front of him; one to denote his rank as metropolitan archbishop of York and the other for his office as legatus natus of the pope.

In the time when metropolitans used the episcopal (or metropolitical) cross (if you must) it was depicted as a cross with one horizontal bar. At this time in history bishops ensigned their arms with a mitre and sometimes a crozier and did not make use of a cross. Later, bishops began to adopt the use of the episcopal cross in their arms and metropolitan archbishops, desiring to have a distinctive emblem, adopted the cross with two horizontal bars to mark their arms as different from those of a bishop. In addition, after the adoption of the galero in ecclesiastical arms (first done by cardinals and later by other prelates) the number of tassels was often differentiated to indicate the rank of the bearer. Keep in mind, however, that the current system of colors and numbers of tassels was only regulated in the XIX and XX centuries.

Now all archbishops use a double-barred cross and all bishops use a single-barred cross in their arms. The external ornaments indicate the rank of the bearer not the nature of his jurisdiction. In fact, the only indication of the jurisdiction in an (arch)episcopal coat of arms is the fact that the armiger’s personal arms are impaled with those of the see but even that is far from universal, occurring mostly in N.America and Germany. An (arch)diocese has a coat of arms of its own. The arms of the (arch)bishop are the arms of the man, not the see.

Despite the increasing use of a pallium as an external ornament (against the advice of people like Heim, and Selvester, for that matter) there is no heraldic distinction for a metropolitan archbishop. Interestingly, in Britain there had been. All metropolitans impaled their own arms with a field containing a pallium (pall) and a single-barred cross. This is where the arms of the see of Canterbury have their origin. This, in turn, influenced several other metropolitans (i.e. Dublin, Armagh, Birmingham, Westminster and even Adelaide, Australia) who regularly used the pall and cross on their arms (that is to say on the shield instead of as an external ornament) to indicate they were metropolitan as opposed to titular archbishops.

When dealing with the arms of Cardinals who are not bishops, am I correct in assuming that they should not include the archepiscopal cross behind the shield?

The arms of Cardinal Roberto Tucci, an Italian Jesuit priest:

http://www.araldicavaticana.com/SIC-02 Tucci0001.JPG

Would I also be correct that Cardinals who are “only” bishops (as opposed to being archbishops) would continue to use the single-armed episcopal cross and not the double-armed archepiscopal cross?

The arms of Cardinal Ján Chryzostom Korec, Bishop of Nitra (Slovakia); and Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life:

http://www.araldicavaticana.com/KOREC hanskorec.jpg http://www.araldicavaticana.com/SGRECCIA0001.jpg

steven harris;97816 wrote:

When dealing with the arms of Cardinals who are not bishops, am I correct in assuming that they should not include the archepiscopal cross behind the shield?

Yes. They should display no cross. Unfortunately, this never seems to be followed.

Quote:

Would I also be correct that Cardinals who are “only” bishops (as opposed to being archbishops) would continue to use the single-armed episcopal cross and not the double-armed archepiscopal cross?

I don’t know for sure, but my inclination would be no. While your position makes sense, since the cardinalatial honor trumps the archiepiscopal rank in every other non-heraldic situation that immediately comes to mind, my gut tells me that a cardinal would display heraldicly the higher simply as a matter of privilege even if not having the title of archbishop.

If cardinals invariably display a cross behind their arms, whether they are bishops or not, and no one from the Pope on down objects, can we not say that the custom, even tradition, is for cardinals to display the cross?

Joseph McMillan;97819 wrote:

If cardinals invariably display a cross behind their arms, whether they are bishops or not, and no one from the Pope on down objects, can we not say that the custom, even tradition, is for cardinals to display the cross?

But, popes have "objected" by issuing instructions that it should not be done.

You have to be a bishop to use the cross behind the shield. Period. No other rank entitles you to it.

steven harris;97816 wrote:

When dealing with the arms of Cardinals who are not bishops, am I correct in assuming that they should not include the archepiscopal cross behind the shield?

Yes, that is correct. Sadly, it is often ignored.

steven harris;97816 wrote:

Would I also be correct that Cardinals who are “only” bishops (as opposed to being archbishops) would continue to use the single-armed episcopal cross and not the double-armed archepiscopal cross?

Yes, that is also correct. Cardinals who are not archbishops use a single barred episcopal cross. Being a cardinal does not entitle one to use the patriarchal or archiepiscopal cross. This, too, is often not correctly observed. Why? Because too many cardinals simply copy the ornaments they see in the arms of most other cardinals. But, most other cardinals are archbishops.

Are there, presently, any Cardinals who are not also at least titular bishops of some see somewhere in the ancient lands of the Church?

Thanks for you clarification.

Doug Welsh;97829 wrote:

Are there, presently, any Cardinals who are not also at least titular bishops of some see somewhere in the ancient lands of the Church?

Yes, by my count there are currently three Cardinals who have not been concentrated bishops:

• Karl Josef Becker, a Jesuit priest from Germany

• Roberto Tucci, a Jesuit priest from Italy, who was President of Vatican Radio (1985-2001)

• Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit priest from France, who was Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute (1984-1990), and Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1990-2001)