George Lucki;58116 wrote:
The issue of the nature of the sovereignty of the Popes as sovereigns of the Holy See would seem to be a difficult concept -
In fact the Pope’s sovereignty is seen by the Church and generally acknowledged by the world community to flow not from his possession fo the Vatican City State but from his possession of the Holy See. Even after the loss of the Papal States and before the Lateran Treaty the Pope’s sovereignty was not in question. The Lateran Treaty did not make the Pope sovereign but rather regulated some of teh questions in dispute between the sovereigns of Italy and the Holy See. God may not give a hang about who is the sovereign of the Vatican City State (I don’t know) but He apparently does give a hang (the guidance of the Holy Spirit) about who is the sovereign of the Holy See and that is the basis of the Pope’s sovereignty!
As I noted above there is only one claim to "sovereignty" the Pope still makes today: that of the sovereign of the Vatican City-State. I did not say his authority flows from that. Rather, it is the only claim to sovereignty he makes and it does not come from God. It is man-made from beginning to end. The Pope is not the sovereign of the Holy See. His possession of the Holy See (of Rome) is as a bishop, not a king. Your theology and ecclesiology are mistaken here. So, you originally contended that all the Pope’s authority flows from God. It does not. His authority over the Vatican City-State is a creation of men. The nature of the Pope’s authority as the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church (his title as head of the Holy See) would, obviously, not be appropriate at all to this thread or this Forum as it is a discussion that is purely about ideology and not about heraldry, armory, or sovereignty.
George Lucki;58133 wrote:
[ATTACH]437[/ATTACH]
The arms of Prince Sigismondo Chigi that I had mentioned earlier. Sorry about the poor quality. I’ve made a telephone photo as I’m without a scanner right now.
I think the specifiic additaments and/or augmentations make for a clear appreciation of his status and role within the Papal Nobility.
the arms in the 1st and 4th quarter look like those of pope Julius II, what is the story behind those quarters ?
Isn’t the entire family name "Chigi Albani della Rovere"? I know the eradicated oak tree was the emblem of the Della Rovere family…as in Pope Sixtus IV (Francesco della Rovere) and his nephew, Pope Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere).
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4766/roveredu3.gif
Another view of the Marshal’s arms from a coin minted during the Sede Vacante of 1958
gselvester;58160 wrote:
As I noted above there is only one claim to "sovereignty" the Pope still makes today: that of the sovereign of the Vatican City-State.
Guy,
I’m not sure this is exactly correct. It’s his only claim to territorial sovereignty, but the Holy See insists that diplomatic missions to it be accredited "to the Holy See," not to "the State of Vatican City," as the US deputy chief of mission there explained to me a couple of years ago.
The US State Department says in its background note on the Holy See that "the Holy See, as the supreme body of government of the Catholic Church, is a sovereign juridical entity under international law." (My italics) The British Foreign Office has a similar statement on its website. The fact that numerous sovereigns continued to maintain diplomatic relations with the Papacy during the period when it controlled no territory at all supports this non-territorial interpretation of the sovereignty of the Holy See.
That said, I’m not sure it has anything to do with the papal nobility. Ruvigny says the the nobility was created on the basis of the Pope’s status as sovereign of the Papal States, which makes sense, since I think originally it had something of a feudal basis. I certainly don’t believe this needs to be sorted out to have a discussion of papal nobles’ heraldry.
gselvester;58160 wrote:
As I noted above there is only one claim to "sovereignty" the Pope still makes today: that of the sovereign of the Vatican City-State. I did not say his authority flows from that. Rather, it is the only claim to sovereignty he makes and it does not come from God. It is man-made from beginning to end. The Pope is not the sovereign of the Holy See. His possession of the Holy See (of Rome) is as a bishop, not a king. Your theology and ecclesiology are mistaken here. So, you originally contended that all the Pope’s authority flows from God. It does not. His authority over the Vatican City-State is a creation of men. The nature of the Pope’s authority as the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church (his title as head of the Holy See) would, obviously, not be appropriate at all to this thread or this Forum as it is a discussion that is purely about ideology and not about heraldry, armory, or sovereignty.
Fr. Guy,
OK, I understand some of the earlier controversy you raised better - it seems to be based on an unfortunately incorrect view of the Papacy that you hold. I think correcting this misconception settles some of the earlier challenges you raised.
The Popes make in fact not one but two claims to temporal sovereignty - the US State department has a nice summary of this on http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3819.htm. The majority of international treaties the Pope is a party to are made by the Holy See and not the Vatican City State whose sovereignty is subsidiary to that of the Holy See.
The following information comes from the Holy See’s own web-site:
Quote:
The expression Holy See refers to the supreme Authority of the Church, and thus the Pope as Bishop of Rome and head of the College of Bishops. Defines therefore the Central Government of the Catholic Church. As such, the Holy See is an institution which, according to the international laws and customs, has a juridical personality which permits it to sign treaties and to send and receive diplomatic representatives, as juridical equivalent of a state.
The State of Vatican City came into existence with the Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy on 11 February 1929 and ratified on 7 June 1929, by which Italy recognized the full property rights and exclusive sovereignty on the Vatican as it is made up at present . It is a very small territorial entity, with the purpose of making it possible for the Pope to exercise freely his Ministry of governing the universal Church .
The State of Vatican City and the Holy See, both sovereign subjects of international public law , universally recognized , are indissolubly united in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, as Head of State , who possesses full legislative, judicial and executive powers. In periods of "Sede Vacante" (Vacancy of the Apostolic See), these powers belong to the College of Cardinals. The Supreme Pontiff governs the State through the Pontifical Commission for the State of Vatican City (legislative power; composed of cardinals, nominated by him for a 5 year period) and the Governatorate of the State of Vatican City (executive power). The legislative regulations are published in a special supplement of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Quote:
That said, I’m not sure it has anything to do with the papal nobility. Ruvigny says the the nobility was created on the basis of the Pope’s status as sovereign of the Papal States, which makes sense, since I think originally it had something of a feudal basis. I certainly don’t believe this needs to be sorted out to have a discussion of papal nobles’ heraldry.
Joseph,
I’ll refer you back to Francis Velde’s analysis and point out that a large number of the Papal titles granted were to foreigners and that we can distinguishe the Papal Roman nobility from the Papal foreign nobility. While the first does seem to have a clear link to the Papal States the latter does not, and has no and never had any feudal obligations - but rather religious ones attached to the creation. The Popes also continued to ennoble after the loss of the Papal States and after the Lateran Treaty. Papal nobility like Papal orders of merit and the orders of chivalry are all atatched to the Holy See and not the Vatican City State nor specifically the Papal States earlier. As the fons honorum for Papal nobility is the Holy See it helps us understand the connection between the government of the Church and the lay nobility of the Church - which controversy led to the But having corrected that, let’s leave it aside as teh heraldic discussion can continue notwithstanding.
I would ask myself three questions in this order:
(1) Is there a heraldic pattern that correlates with papal nobility. In other words, is there a pattern in some significant percentage of arms that can be identified as correlating with the papal-noble status.
(2) Supposing there is not, then that is the end of that topic. If there is, then one classifies the type and frequency of the additaments using a broad range of examples through history.
(3) Once one catalogs and classifies their variety and commonality, then a study—merely for academic interest and not to legitimize the practice—would examine the motivation and/or mechanism for acquiring or being granted the additaments.
So, it seems to me the first step is to provide examples, perhaps a few dozen to start, of the arms of papal nobles so that we can look for a pattern. At this point in the inquiry, whether the Pope grants the additaments or they are assumed seems irrelevant. At this point in the inquiry, whether the papal-nobles are nobles of the Vatican, the nonexistent Holy Roman Empire, or Narnia, seems to be a premature.
Michael Swanson;58172 wrote:
I would ask myself three questions in this order:
(1) Is there a heraldic pattern that correlates with A. In other words, is there a pattern in some significant percentage of arms that can be identified as correlating with the papal-noble status.
(2) Supposing there is not, then that is the end of that topic. If there is, then one classifies the type and frequency of the additaments using a broad range of examples through history.
(3) Once one catalogs and classifies their variety and commonality, then a study—merely for academic interest and not to legitimize the practice—would examine the motivation and/or mechanism for acquiring or being granted the additaments.
So, it seems to me the first step is to provide examples, perhaps a few dozen to start, of the arms of papal nobles so that we can look for a pattern. At this point in the inquiry, whether the Pope grants the additaments or they are assumed seems irrelevant. At this point in the inquiry, whether the papal-nobles are nobles of the Vatican, the nonexistent Holy Roman Empire, or Narnia, seems to be a premature.
Michael,
I would ask myself three analogous questions to test your proposition (which seems terribly flawed) -
(1) Is there a heraldic pattern that correlates with the arms assumed by Americans. In other words, is there a pattern in some significant percentage of arms that can be identified as correlating with American citizenship.
(2) Supposing there is not, then that is the end of that topic. If there is, then one classifies the type and frequency of the devices using a broad range of examples through history.
(3) Once one catalogs and classifies their variety and commonality, then a study—merely for academic interest and not to legitimize the practice—would examine the motivation and/or mechanism for acquiring devices.
So, it seems to me the first step is to provide examples, perhaps a few dozen to start, of the arms arms assumed by Americans so that we can look for a pattern. At this point in the inquiry, whether the US government grants the additaments or they are assumed seems irrelevant. At this point in the inquiry, whether the armigers are armigers of the United States, the nonexistent Holy Roman Empire, or Narnia, seems to be a premature.
Michael, the questions you’ve posed have not been applied to any other armoury discussed here. Why apply them here? I’m having trouble understanding the resistance to looking at the heraldry of the Papal nobility, and there has been a great diversity of topics raised on this forum relating to arms of all sorts and the suggestion that there is nothing to discuss has not arisen. Fundamentally, if there is a pattern, that would be interesting, if there is no pattern that would not be surprising and the individual arms and the identities and their genealogies (the inheritance of arms) would still be of interest. There is nothing in most American arms to suggest any broad pattern. The same applies to German or French or Italian arms as well! The additaments used by German armigers are a series of coronets, supporters, augmentations and sometiems insignial elements (multiple helms are one interesting exception). The additaments used by French armigers are a series of coronets, supporters, augmentations and sometimes insignial elements. The additaments used by Italian armigers are a series of coronets, supporters, augmentations and sometimes insignial elements (coronets signifying the rank of the head of the family are an interesting exception). There is much more to French, Italian or German noble heraldry than the additaments - and it is not simply in the relatively few patterns.
George Lucki;58173 wrote:
Michael,
I would ask myself three analogous questions to test your proposition (which seems terribly flawed) -
(1) Is there a heraldic pattern that correlates with the arms assumed by Americans. In other words, is there a pattern in some significant percentage of arms that can be identified as correlating with American citizenship.
Assume the analogy holds. I would accept your warning that we should not use a heraldry forum to discuss the nature of American citizenship (i.e., how to become one, its privileges and obligations) except is cases where it impacts heraldry. It then follows the current conversation about papal nobility is in the wrong forum.
The analogy does not hold. (a) The reason nobles have noble additiments is (in general) to communicate they are nobles. If papal nobles are not communicating a papal relationship with heraldry, then the topic of papal noble arms is empty. (b) The reason Americans (and most Europeans) have arms is (in general) to communicate family and/or personal identity. The purpose of this forum is to look at the mode and meaning of this communication in its varieties by Americans. This is not an empty topic even if American heraldry is derivative. (But American heraldry is different than, say, Scottish heraldry in method of acquisition and style and what is being communicated, etc.)
Michael Swanson;58174 wrote:
Assume the analogy holds. I would accept your warning that we should not use a heraldry forum to discuss the nature of American citizenship (i.e., how to become one, its privileges and obligations) except is cases where it impacts heraldry. It then follows the current conversation about papal nobility is in the wrong forum.
Except that it does touch on heraldry (as you’ve noted)
Quote:
The analogy does not hold. (a) The reason nobles have noble additiments is (in general) to communicate they are nobles. If papal nobles are not communicating a papal relationship with heraldry, then the topic of papal noble arms is empty. (b) The reason Americans (and most Europeans) have arms is (in general) to communicate family and/or personal identity.
Not so - you are making a greater distinction than is warranted. Nobles as well as non-nobles communicate identity through arms. Membership in an order of nobility is of course an integral element of family identity! If my ancestor were to have received a hereditary Papal title that would become a part of my identity and heritage and my arms would reflect that with the appropriate coronet - but my whole armorial achievement would be that of a Papal noble. The connection between identity and arms is the same, exactly the same for noble as well as other armigers. There is more history to older arms and of course additaments reflect aspects of historical achievements. The Roman Church continues to recognize that nobility is an inalienable hereditary quality.
Quote:
The purpose of this forum is to look at the mode and meaning of this communication in its varieties by Americans. This is not an empty topic even if American heraldry is derivative. (But American heraldry is different than, say, Scottish heraldry in method of acquisition and style and what is being communicated, etc.)
The same would hold true of the heraldry of Papal nobles. It is worth remembering that arms need not convey any meaning - and there is no poarticular meaning to most historical arms that has been transmitted beyond - these are the arms of… There is also no meaning inherent any symbols - they simply have the meaning we give to them. If one heraldry is an empty set then so is the other.
To George and Joseph:
Good points all and addressing the question of sovereignty in the sense of autonomy to act in the international community. Fair enough. However, quoting the same source that George provided to us from the Holy See’s website:
"As such, the Holy See is an institution which, according to the international laws and customs, has a juridical personality which permits it to sign treaties and to send and receive diplomatic representatives, as juridical equivalent of a state." (empasis added)
Which means the Holy See is sovereign not that the Pope is the sovereign of the Holy See and this authority does not come from God both as George contends. The only aspect of the Pope’s authority that has a divine origin (for those of us who believe this to be so) does not relate to sovereignty (in the sense of autonomy to act in the world community as the equivalent of a state as opposed to territorial sovereignty) or his (and the Church’s) relationship to the other nations of the world and temporalities (such as creating nobles). That is the part that God doesn’t care about. This is all "Catholicism, 101". Caesaropapism is a thing of the past.
It goes to the earlier question about the role(s) of the Pope vis-a-vis Velde’s definition, etc.
gselvester;58177 wrote:
To George and Joseph:
Good points all and addressing the question of sovereignty in the sense of autonomy to act in the international community. Fair enough. However, quoting the same source that George provided to us from the Holy See’s website:
"As such, the Holy See is an institution which, according to the international laws and customs, has a juridical personality which permits it to sign treaties and to send and receive diplomatic representatives, as juridical equivalent of a state." (empasis added)
Which means the Holy See is sovereign not that the Pope is the sovereign of the Holy See and this authority does not come from God both as George contends.
This is getting a bit tiresome. You are ignoring the clear statement "The State of Vatican City and the Holy See, both sovereign subjects of international public law , universally recognized , are indissolubly united in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, as Head of State , who possesses full legislative, judicial and executive powers." I’ve added emphasis. What could be clearer. I had previously outlined the union of the sovereign and the episcopal that among sees is unique to the Papacy. Guy, this is from the Holy See’s own site and although you may disagree with it - it is as it is.
Quote:
The only aspect of the Pope’s authority that has a divine origin (for those of us who believe this to be so) does not relate to sovereignty (in the sense of autonomy to act in the world community as the equivalent of a state as opposed to territorial sovereignty) or his (and the Church’s) relationship to the other nations of the world and temporalities (such as creating nobles). That is the part that God doesn’t care about. This is all "Catholicism, 101". Caesaropapism is a thing of the past.
Cesaropapism is of course a thing of the past but Catholicism 101 still would hold the view that the Pope’s authority is from God and is unabridged except for the limits he places on it and the practical exigencies of the world. Some in the modern world and even many folks in the Church are sometimes uncomfortable with this and of course in the last decades the Church has focused more on the purely pastoral, but none of this changes the Pope’s sovereignty over the Holy See. Non eof this alters the Pope’s capacity to use any and all temporal tools available to a sovereign advance the mission of the Church he leads.
Guy, I am replying only because the statements needed correcting - but this is getting us off-topic and I would like to see this get back to the heraldry of the Papal nobility. Unless there is some more authoritative statement that you can quote that contradicts both the information provided by the State Department and the Holy See, let’s leave this be and move back to the topic.
George,
Isn’t the point of the discussion in any scholarly or quasi-scholarly forum to facilitate generalization and discrimination among different categories of phenomena? In other words, to build theoretical understanding of the phenomena? Obviously reporting data points (in this case, what the arms of people in some category or other look like) is essential in this process, but if it doesn’t lead to analysis and synthesis, reporting on this shield or that shield is just putting out more or less pretty pictures for people to ooh and aah over—or not.
On these forums, we mostly discuss American arms with a view toward understanding better how arms have been used in this country: how does it differ from other countries, what are the historical influences, how did their use change as society changed, what laws govern their use if any, how did republican ideology affect the popularity of arms. In general, people report what they consider noteworthy examples of heraldic usage in the US in pursuit of this objective.
You evidently believe that there is scholarly value in a similar systematic study of the arms of papal nobles. In your post starting this thread, you say:
Quote:
One relatively neglected area in the study of ecclesiastic heraldry is the area of the arms and heraldic privileges of the laymen who were ennobled by the Supreme Pontiff, particularly those who were granted hereditary nobility,
To say that this is a neglected area suggests that it is more deserving of study than, say, the arms of the police chiefs of the city of Marseille. The challenge several of us are setting for you is to explain why. What scholarly objective is served by a discussion of "arms of the papal nobility." We know that papal nobles have always used arms. Why should we care—in theoretical, scholarly terms—what these arms look like any more than we care about what any other arms look like? Presumably it is because they are different from other arms.
Your opening post suggests that you believe we should care because these arms are different from other ecclesiastical arms, not because they are different from other noble arms:
Quote:
While the arms assumed by the secular and religious clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church are usually for only one lifetime the arms of the nobility are hereditary.
I find that a meager basis for thinking of arms of the papal nobility as constituting a special category, inasmuch as being hereditary is true of all personal arms, even clerical arms. That’s why I asked: where’s the heraldry here? You cited several features that appear in the arms of some papal nobles, but on further examination they turn out to be symbols not of papal nobility but of something else.
I guess "arms of the papal nobility" can be a useful taxonomic category for some purposes. For some purposes (composing a coat of arms, perhaps) one might classify animals by color—blue sharks and bluebirds in one order, black bears, crows, and black caimans in another, and so on. Or one can classify them the way the old medieval naturalists did: animals that live on land, animals that live in the sea, animals that live in fire. But for most purposes it is more useful to classify them by anatomical characteristics as mammals, birds, fish, etc. Thus far, I continue to find it more useful to classify the arms of, say Prince Chigi, in the conventional way as being of the phylum "secular," the class "Italian," the order "noble," the family "princely," etc., because they more closely resemble the arms of other Italian princes than they do the arms of other persons with some ecclesiastical character. But, as I’ve said, I’m open to being convinced if there’s evidence to support a different approach.
Or maybe I misunderstand completely what you have in mind, and it’s just an exercise in collecting and documenting the arms of a group of people you find interesting, whether or not their arms have anything in common other than the fact that their bearers hold papal titles. If so, that’s more than fine with me, and I look forward to seeing what you find.
But I think I would conclude in that case that the study of these arms is neglected only in the same sense that the arms of German World War II personalities or the Marseille police chiefs is neglected.
Joseph McMillan;58179 wrote:
But I think I would conclude in that case that the study of these arms is neglected only in the same sense that the arms of German World War II personalities or the Marseille police chiefs is neglected.
Those are also potentially interesting areas of study and we should have no quibble about those topics or about this one. What makes this topic interesting for me is that a Church created nobility is historically quite a unique phenomenon and the heraldry of this group is a part of the heritage of this Church. I am interested in learning more and when I looked around relatively little seems to have been written about this (at least for what is accessible to me) and so I put it out there for my colleagues. Meanwhile the discussion seems to keep being led back to the unhelpful question - what is there here to discuss?
Despite this I do appreciate the two examples you’ve given from von Volborth and the examples provided by James Dempster. These are things that have contributed to learning more about the arms of the Papal nobility. That’s what I was hoping to see more of in the thread. There are apparently around 200 Papal/Roman noble families and several hundred foreign ones at the very least. I’ll be trying to locate the French armorial that was cited.
I’ll acknowedge that as in my view heraldry is intimately connected with genealogy (without its connection to genealogy or heritage personal heraldry would seem more trivial) one of the questions that arises for me are also the geneaological connections (evidenced also perhaps through heraldry) that might exist between numerous families in the Papal nobility. My guess is that these historical elites of lay service to the Church represent an interconnected and predominantly armigerous extended family tree. This forum is more interested in the armoury than the genealogy so I’ll leave those considerations aside.
George Lucki;58181 wrote:
Meanwhile the discussion seems to keep being led back to the unhelpful question - what is there here to discuss?
I raise it only by way of explaining why I think "American heraldry" and "heraldry of the papal nobility" are not commensurable concepts when it comes to deciding what is or is not worth discussing. As I said, I’ve never had any objection to exploring the heraldic aspects of the papal nobility, my skepticism about the prospects for what I would consider useful insights notwithstanding.
I would agree that the sources of the pope’s authority (putative authority, I should say, as a dyed in the wool Calvinist), the nature of the sovereignty of the Holy See, whether papal nobility is a spiritual or temporal concept, etc., etc., while perhaps interesting, are not suitable subjects for discussion in this forum.
Quote:
I would ask myself three questions in this order:
(1) Is there a heraldic pattern that correlates with papal nobility. In other words, is there a pattern in some significant percentage of arms that can be identified as correlating with the papal-noble status.
(2) Supposing there is not, then that is the end of that topic. If there is, then one classifies the type and frequency of the additaments using a broad range of examples through history.
(3) Once one catalogs and classifies their variety and commonality, then a study—merely for academic interest and not to legitimize the practice—would examine the motivation and/or mechanism for acquiring or being granted the additaments.
So, it seems to me the first step is to provide examples, perhaps a few dozen to start, of the arms of papal nobles so that we can look for a pattern. At this point in the inquiry, whether the Pope grants the additaments or they are assumed seems irrelevant. At this point in the inquiry, whether the papal-nobles are nobles of the Vatican, the nonexistent Holy Roman Empire, or Narnia, seems to be a premature.
Mr. Swanson, I can not agree more with everything you just said. Obviously I am inclined (majority of my opinion, not 100% sure) that there is evidence of this given some of the examples George mentioned already. So, my mind is open on it, but leaning towards valid. So, I am also still open to that being incorrect, but right now I think there is some basis for this.
Now, as an aside…how does one get a noble title from Narnia???? I soooooooo want one! 
I can’t wait to see the next feature on it. OK, sorry, not heraldry, my bad…I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
