Some more Philippino Arms:

http://www.cbcponline.net/jurisdictions/assets/cotabato_seal.jpg

Orlando B. Quevedo, OMI Archbishop of Cotabato.

http://www.cbcponline.net/jurisdictions/assets/seal_segovia.jpg

Edmundo M. Abaya, Archbishop of Nueva Segovia.

http://www.cbcponline.net/jurisdictions/assets/tugue_seal.gif

Diosdado A. Talamayan, Archbishop of Tuguegarao.

http://www.cbcponline.net/naval/assets/images/naval_seal.gif

Filomeno Gonzales Bactol, Bishop of Naval.

http://www.cbcponline.net/maasin/clip_image002.gif

Precioso D. Cantillas, Bishop of Maasin.

http://www.cbcponline.net/iba/assets/iba_seal.gif

Deogracias S. Iguez, Bishop of Iba.

New arms for Mark Coleridge, Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn who wanted something simpler than his current achievement (shown on the right).

http://heraldry.aussiebulls.org/Pix/ColeridgeS.jpg  http://heraldry.aussiebulls.org/Pix/ColeridgeOld.jpg

The arms were designed by the Archbishop in conjunction with Heraldry Australia President, Richard d’Apice.

Richard discussed this with me when we saw each other last month in Quebec. I certainly understand the archbishop’s desire to have a simpler design. I also think the new artwork is excellent.

However, the original was done by the late Michael McCarthy. I wonder if, perhaps, it was simply Mr. McCarthy’s artistic style the archbishop didn’t like? Perhaps it might have been a good idea simply to start with a new emblazonment before deciding to change the blazon as well? I know many people didn’t care for Michael’s style which shows heavy influences from both Heim and Baker. Many bishops prefer to be a little less daring and more conventional with their coats of arms.

Anyway, it is a done deal now. Personally, I think the original arms were wonderful. However, I also think the new blazon and emblazonment are also very fine indeed.

I was wondering something similar: unhappy with the blazon or unhappy with the emblazon. The original arms aren’t really any more complicated than the new ones, are they? Both are really quite nice.

The interesting coat of arms of the new bishop of Cruz del Eje, Argentina the Most rev. Santiago Olivera who will be ordained on August 18. Very striking and simple and quite correct even without the galero.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4771/escudooliveraqp0.jpg

Kenneth Mansfield;61027 wrote:

I was wondering something similar: unhappy with the blazon or unhappy with the emblazon. The original arms aren’t really any more complicated than the new ones, are they? Both are really quite nice.

I agree the new arms is not realy more simple than the old one, and this will actualy be the third arms used by Archbishop Coleridge. When Titular Bishop of Teveste and Auxiliary Bishop in the Archdiocese of Melbourne (2002-2006) he used a totaly different Arms but with the same symbolism: the Lion of St. Mark denoting his surename Mark. And the waves denoting the passage from the Gospel of St. john "One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance and immediately there flowed forth blood and water ..". This is also allued to in the Motto (which has been the only part keept in all three arms) which translates as Blood and Water. The Star denotes St. Mary as the Morning Star.

http://www.romanrite.com/blood.jpeg

Arms of the then Auxiliary Bishop Coleridge.

It’s hard to say, comparing these to the others, since the others are impaling, but I think I quite like this iteration the best.

He does seem, though, to have been having some difficulty in "settling in" with his arms.  Maybe no one ever told him about the "refridgerator test".  Or maybe no one told him that once chosen, arms should stay the same.

I agree that it should have been a case where the arms that he had should have simply been impaled with the diocesan arms of Canberra-Goulborn before any other decisions were made. In addition, there is no rule that a bishop has to impale his arms with the diocesan arms so Abp. Coleridge could simply have borne his original arms alone. But, i will say that it is not uncommon for bishops to change their arms when they change office (i.e. move to a different diocese and/or get promoted, etc.).

gselvester;61357 wrote:

—-SNIP—-

But, i will say that it is not uncommon for bishops to change their arms when they change office (i.e. move to a different diocese and/or get promoted, etc.).

Why is it "not uncommon"?

Frequently they take advantage of the change (with its accompanying re-emblazoning of their arms and/or marshaling of their arms with diocesan arms) to re-assess their existing coat of arms. Sometimes there are things about which they’ve had second thoughts and/or elements that they simply want to change. Keep in mind that many bishops are not armigerous before they become bishops. In many instances they are appointed and are also expected to come up with a design for a coat of arms hastily and have it completed prior to their ordination as bishop or installation in a new diocese. In some cases the interval can be as brief as 4 or 5 weeks. So, often the chance to "tweak" the design and/or change it entirely is too good to pass up. Sometimes it is also the much simpler matter of re-designing their personal arms to better harmonize with the diocesan arms marshaled with them.

Here is the coat of arms of my own bishop at the time he became auxiliary bishop of Newark:

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8813/aspectsofheraldryno8.jpg

Here is the re-design he adopted with my assistance at the time he was transferred to my diocese:

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1136/sarms2211x300211x300fi0.jpg

Funny.  I would prefer the first version.  Irish and Scottish practise aside, I see quartering as inherited, like many of us.  I prefer the earlier version.  But the second version of the motto is better.

Oh, I think the second one is much better.

/Charles

I agree.  The initial version seems imbalanced, whereas the second one fixes that problem.  Also, I don’t think it very likely to be confused for a marshalled achievement.