Bishop’s Arms

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2006 02:36
 

Here are the arms of Archbishop Jan Sokol of Bratislava-Trnava, Slovakia. Note the use of the pallium which is not normative.

http://excoboard.com/forums/18883/user/133625/188937.gif

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 02:47
 

Here’s my question good father and please give it to me as straight as possible…

If the use of the mitre was suppressed for Ordinaries as it is used in the sacrifice of the mass, why then does the Holy Father and this bishop above and that group desire to force its display in arms, as it too is used in the sacrifice of the mass? I am lost as to the reasoning for both of these positions…

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2006 12:27
 

Because there is no regulation of heraldry in the Church. People are still free to do as they please and many bishops’ arms are designed and rendered by people ignorant of good heraldic practice. It’s really very simple: there are too many ignorant people involved in the design and execution of heraldry for clergy. Furthermore, since there is no Church regulation of heraldry unless some prelate is subject to a heraldic authority (as in Canada, or England or Scotland, etc.) there is no recourse as well. We just have to live with the mistakes.

Here’s a good example…the arms of the current bishop of Kaisiadorys, Lthuania. He uses the mitre and crozier which is an older form that has not been permitted for over 30 years. In addition, he has a veil attached to the crozier which is only done in the arms of an abbot, not a bishop. See what I mean? And who told him this was wrong? Nobody, because there is nobody to say so in the Church and Lithuania has no heraldic authority.

 

http://excoboard.com/forums/18883/user/133625/188938.jpg

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 13:19
 

gselvester wrote:

[T]here is no regulation of heraldry in the [Roman Catholic] Church.


Why is this? Doesn’t the Bishop of Rome have plenary power over this? I mean, if he wanted to, couldn’t Benedict XVI establish that no clergyman could bear arms unless lawfully granted by a Roman Catholic heraldic authority as constituted by him?

 
Stuart
 
Avatar
 
 
Stuart
Total Posts:  230
Joined  01-12-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 16:05
 

It may not be correct, but it sure is attractive!

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2006 17:32
 

Hugh Brady wrote:

Why is this? Doesn’t the Bishop of Rome have plenary power over this? I mean, if he wanted to, couldn’t Benedict XVI establish that no clergyman could bear arms unless lawfully granted by a Roman Catholic heraldic authority as constituted by him?


The answer is yes and no. Yes, the Pope could establish a heraldic office or authority for the Church. But he hasn’t and, likely, won’t. Whether or not he could isn’t the question. The Pope has supreme authority in the Church. He could order St. peter’s to be torn down and the Pieta sold to the Louvre too…but he won’t.

 

However, even if he established a Church Heraldic Authority that is not to say it will be supreme over the other heraldic authorities of the world when it comes to the arms of prelates from the countries where such authorities exist. If Pope Benedict XVI established the Catholic Church Heraldic Authority tomorrow that would have no bearing on the arms of bishops who live in Canada, or England, or Scotland, or Wales, etc. The bishops of those countries can still only bear lawful arms by having them granted by the heraldic authority of their country.

 

To bring this back to the original point: sometimes bishops have arms that flout Catholic heraldic custom and tradition (like using a pallium, or including the mitre and crozier) because at the present time there is no over-arching heraldic authority concerned with the heraldry of clergy and institutions in the Roman Catholic Church. Period.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 17:32
 

Good father, I personally prefer the older style of heraldic design; that is to say including the mitre and crosier. Of course despite being an artist and a rather odd fellow when it comes to personal clothing, hair color, etc., I am a rather old fashioned fella and I even prefer the older mass.

That being said, I accept the Church’s ability to change non-dogmatic things - like her heraldic expressions. I just think it is very odd indeed for His Holiness to go against the ruling of Paul VI (correct me if I’m wrong) on not allowing a mitre because it is used in the sacrifice of the holy mass et al only to do the very same thing with the pallium, which is in the same category if I’m not mistaken. I find it very odd that HH would do it and I am not surprised that other bishops will follow suit.

 

My conspiratorial side thinks there are other motives afoot in such heraldic novelties - especially given the prelate who designed them for HH to begin with, but that is for another MB. However, I can also see that most people after HH will add the pallium under their arms are in fact of the ignorant category you mentioned.

 

Granted I am not a priest, nor a bishop, and my four years discerning a priestly vocation really do not entitle me to make judgments on internal Church governance and regulations etc., yet I can not help but wish that the Holy See would establish an official heraldic authority for her priests and bishops in an effort to tidy things up, educate, and regulate good/solid Catholic heraldic practice.

 

Have you personally ever thought of writing a book on Catholic heraldry, as I am having a heck of a time finding Heim’s work through my library system? It seems to me we could use an educated, talented clergyman to write one that can become a reference book for heraldic painters and the ordained as well. (I’m sure you’re already too busy, but if not you…we really do need another Heim to write one).

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 17:40
 

Oops I just missed you.

On the lawful authority measure, how does that work with England? I know that Lyon has been granting arms for some time to Catholic clergymen. However, it is my understanding that the English College of Arms does not recognize the Catholic clergy’s use of arms, as it has refused on several occasions to grant arms to Catholic clergymen who petitioned for them.

 

I believe it was Fox-Davies who mentioned this, so as Joe would say, consider the source. But if it is true, what would the Church do then?

 

Also, in socialist/communist countries where the Church is suppressed from one degree to another (China, North Korea, Vietnam come to mind) what is the Church’s stance on her clergymen using arms? I know that in Vietnam the government can, and routinely does, go into a Catholic church and basically steal everything from paintings to sacred vessels to vestments. Heck while my pastor was there they took over an entire orphanage, including the chapel, and kicked the nuns and priest and kids out and turned it into governmental offices. So, in paces like this the “law” of the land would seem to not allow much of anything Catholic, so how would the Church see the use of heraldry in those places from a legal standpoint?

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 18:25
 

gselvester wrote:

However, even if he established a Church Heraldic Authority that is not to say it will be supreme over the other heraldic authorities of the world when it comes to the arms of prelates from the countries where such authorities exist.


I wonder…perhaps as to personal arms, but maybe not to arms of bishoprics, etc. Can an argument be made that since the Pope erects the dioceses, they are components of the Holy See recognized at international law, and thus the emblems of a "foreign power." I can’t find anything in the law of arms that prohibits, say, an embassy from displaying the arms of its home country.

 

A rather fascinating legal question, I think, of the sort often overlooked in heraldic studies.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2006 21:05
 

Donnchadh wrote:

On the lawful authority measure, how does that work with England? I know that Lyon has been granting arms for some time to Catholic clergymen. However, it is my understanding that the English College of Arms does not recognize the Catholic clergy’s use of arms, as it has refused on several occasions to grant arms to Catholic clergymen who petitioned for them.

 


No, the English College of Arms provides grants to Catholic clergy who ask. In fact, they went out of their way to consult with the Church on the appropriate external symbols for Catholic prelates. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has a grant from the College of Arms.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2006 21:10
 

Hugh Brady wrote:

I wonder…perhaps as to personal arms, but maybe not to arms of bishoprics, etc. Can an argument be made that since the Pope erects the dioceses, they are components of the Holy See recognized at international law, and thus the emblems of a "foreign power." I can’t find anything in the law of arms that prohibits, say, an embassy from displaying the arms of its home country.

A rather fascinating legal question, I think, of the sort often overlooked in heraldic studies.


The countries of the world would never allow a diocese to be erected if it made that territory part of the Holy See. No, dioceses are lines of jurisdiction drawn up for ecclesiastical administration only. They are not components of the Holy See. The Pope has universal ecclesial jurisdiction over all dioceses but he does not have sovereign authority over them. The only "components" of the Holy See located around the world are the Holy See’s Nunciatures.

 

By way of example the dioceses of Scotland didn’t have corporate coats of arms until recently…when they were granted by Lord Lyon, not by the Pope.

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 21:29
 

Thanks for the info.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
07 July 2006 22:32
 

Thanks good father. I guess I really need to chuck my copy of Fox-Davies in the circular file. It seems every time he says something that others here show him to be incorrect. Sigh. Frustrating…so be it.

Glad that the clergymen are granted arms, but what of the Sees? I know at their restoration the Catholic Church could not form diocese on the pre-reformation model of Sees using their ancient names, which is why they have different names today.

 

So, I’m going to go look-about on the internet and see what I can come up with. But, until then can you tell me if they have granted arms to the Sees themselves? Thanks.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2006 23:53
 

As far as I know the English College of Arms does not grant arms to Catholic Sees. As for Fox-Davies you just need to keep in mind that his writings are outdated. We always talk on this forum about how heraldry is evolving and developing all the time. Fox-Davies was correct in his time.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
08 July 2006 00:35
 

Thanks father. I should keep the age of his writing in mind. Everything in perspective Donnchadh… thanks again.

8)