here is a rough computer rendering of the proposed arms for our MG marshalled with those of the order. any thoughts, comments, suggestions ect? PAX ET BONVM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/530010_426981077340858_1352323760_n.jpg
First impression (limited to the personal arms shown impaled to the sinister side—I don’t know enough about the particular church or order to comment intelligently re: the institutional arms to the dexter side)
The design (a plain bend between two simple charges) is clean, simple, & easily recognizable at a distance or in small scale. They should be reasonable clear at a distance or small scale even if impaled with the institutional arms. Those are generally the basic criteria we look (or hope!) for in a coat of arms.
Assuming any symbolism in the design or individual charges is appropriate for the good General and/or his family, and absent any problems with infringement (i.e. not too similar to other pre-existing arms) it’s a winner in my book.
On a practical "craft" level, they are simple enough that for any reasonably competent artist, seamstress, stone cutter or engraver to reproduce acceptably.
Michael F. McCartney;95061 wrote:
First impression (limited to the personal arms shown impaled to the sinister side—I don’t know enough about the particular church or order to comment intelligently re: the institutional arms to the dexter side)
The design (a plain bend between two simple charges) is clean, simple, & easily recognizable at a distance or in small scale. They should be reasonable clear at a distance or small scale even if impaled with the institutional arms. Those are generally the basic criteria we look (or hope!) for in a coat of arms.
Assuming any symbolism in the design or individual charges is appropriate for the good General and/or his family, and absent any problems with infringement (i.e. not too similar to other pre-existing arms) it’s a winner in my book.
On a practical "craft" level, they are simple enough that for any reasonably competent artist, seamstress, stone cutter or engraver to reproduce acceptably.
the tincture i pretty much pulled out of my rear accept the blue obviously represents the BVM, as does the fleur-de-lis, the tau represents st. anthony the MG’s patron, and of course the franciscan order, the bend represents the two deacons to which he is under the patronage of St. Stephen the patron of the patriarchial see and st. francis our seraphic father while referencing older arms of the MG’s line.
as for the arms of the order the chief is dictated my franciscan custom, and the base represents our obediance to the see of st. stephen, our anglican heritage, and the patronage of the BVM
Thanks fir the info!—though mayI suggest. for any public discussion or official use, that the azure represents the heavens, rather than… 
All this is justified as far as the inter-confessional barrier (still existing) is to be intentionally hidden. This could be one of the purposes of this heraldic display, I admit. This however leaves me slightly uneasy.
Michael Y. Medvedev;95129 wrote:
All this is justified as far as the inter-confessional barrier (still existing) is to be intentionally hidden. This could be one of the purposes of this heraldic display, I admit. This however leaves me slightly uneasy.
what on earth are you talking about
If I may presume…
I think what he means is that anyone looking at this coat of arms would very likely assume it is that of a prelate who is a Latin-Rite, Roman Catholic Christian. I think, and I may be wrong, that Michael is saying this makes him a little uneasy.
IN RESPONSE TO MICHAEL:
"Churches that remain united to the Catholic Church
by means of the closest bonds of Apostolic Succession
and a valid Eucharist are true particular Churches."
Dominus Jesus, Declaration of the Holy See by
Josef Card. Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) and Tarcisio Card. Bertone
under the Pontificate of John Paul II
is there not but One Lord, One faith, One Church, One God and Father of all.
FROM OUR HOME PAGE
"The Anglican Rite (Old) Roman Catholic Church is an Old Roman Catholic Patriarchate descended from the See of Utrecht, which was granted independence by the Holy See in 1145. An historical community of the Catholic Faith in the Anglican Tradition, it is a modern-day continuation of the (faith and practices of the) Roman Catholic Church in England prior to the Protestant Reformation. Stemming from its historic Patriarchal See, distinct from the Anglican Ordinariate and the Continuing Anglican organizations, and not affiliated formally with any other Anglican or Catholic organization except as stated, it operates worldwide to spread the missionary Gospel of the pilgrim Church. We are distinct in that we openly embrace both the Anglican Rite and the Roman Rite in our liturgy, theology, and practices. Blessed with the gift of autonomy and independence, and in spiritual unity and sympathy with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, we work to exemplify the example of our Lord through the Charism of the Holy Spirt and the Intercessions of Our Lady in the daily advance of spiritual discipleship as our Anglican Rite Catholic Faithful advance in their daily walk with Christ.
Free from the constraints of traditional jurisdiction and political intrigue, our authority originates in Christ Jesus, in unbroken Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles and includes the fullness of Anglican and Roman Catholic succession. Though independent in governance, we recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, successor to the See of St. Peter, as First Among Equals of all Catholic Bishops in unity worldwide. (See also these words of the Holy Father on renewal in the Church.)
We maintain traditional Rites, practices, and celebrations. Our Worship, in English or Latin, is Sanctified in the Letter and Spirit of the Church Councils expressing the wisdom and understanding of Our Church Fathers in the Revelation of the Faith. The 2010 Book of Common Prayer provides the Anglican Rite Catholic Faithful with a single source for active participation in Christian Worship."
at the time of our seperation from the governance of rome (by papal permission) heraldry had already been fully established in the Church, should we then abandon a system merely to avoid confusion if that is the case no american should assume arms as to avoid being confused with those who have been granted arms in other nations.
Calm down. This isn’t about Apostolic Succession or whether or not there is one Lord and one faith. This is about heraldry. Your final question is a good one and bears further discussion but keep the whole conversation about heraldry and let’s not get into a sideshow about various churches. Whether or not the heraldic tradition(s) of the Roman Catholic Church are exclusive to it is open to debate.
I’m not sure it’s true that "heraldry had already been fully established in the church" by 1145. According to Michel Pastoureau (as summarized by Francois Velde at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/right.htm), the earliest examples of heraldry used by ecclesiastical sees and priests date to the early 1200s, and the earliest use by religious communities to about 1300. Certainly the use of the galero as the distinctive emblem of a priest did not come until several centuries after that.
Joseph McMillan;95152 wrote:
I’m not sure it’s true that "heraldry had already been fully established in the church" by 1145. According to Michel Pastoureau (as summarized by Francois Velde at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/right.htm), the earliest examples of heraldry used by ecclesiastical sees and priests date to the early 1200s, and the earliest use by religious communities to about 1300. Certainly the use of the galero as the distinctive emblem of a priest did not come until several centuries after that.
yes but the see of utrech was only granted independent government from the holy see in 1145, we did not offically sever corporate communion with rome until around 1691/1701 when the Jesuits accused Abp Petrus Codde of Heresy (he was acquitted), in order to appoint a Latin Rite successor. he was deposed anyway, and the dutch people refused to accept his successor.
Moderator’s note: this is a heraldry and not a "my church is better than yours" forum. Please stay on topic or the thread is going away.
kimon;95162 wrote:
Moderator’s note: this is a heraldry and not a "my church is better than yours" forum. Please stay on topic or the thread is going away.
no one is debating whos church is better, we are debating wether a church not in communion with rome should follow roman heraldic practices
friarbrett;95166 wrote:
no one is debating whos church is better, we are debating wether a church not in communion with rome should follow roman heraldic practices
I also dare to think that this sub-discussion is heraldically relevant.
:vader: Please, dear Kimon, may we continue. We shall try to be quiet
So, as far as heraldry is concerned… let me explain…
Be it on a battlefield or in a course of the most peaceful and brotherly celebration, I would feel a wee bit uneasy when the retinues subordinated to different seniors wear identical liveries.—The same I would apply to the clerical attributes. When clerics in communion with Rome may bear totally different attributes (which is the case of the different rites) and those not in communion with Rome follow Roman habits, this seems to me somehow misleading.
Dear Father Guy, may I thank you cordially for retelling my words and interpreting them so precisely.
Michael Y. Medvedev;95168 wrote:
I also dare to think that this sub-discussion is heraldically relevant.
:vader: Please, dear Kimon, may we continue. We shall try to be quiet
So, as far as heraldry is concerned… let me explain…
Be it on a battlefield or in a course of the most peaceful and brotherly celebration, I would feel a wee bit uneasy when the retinues subordinated to different seniors wear identical liveries.—The same I would apply to the clerical attributes. When clerics in communion with Rome may bear totally different attributes (which is the case of the different rites) and those not in communion with Rome follow Roman habits, this seems to me somehow misleading.
Dear Father Guy, may I thank you cordially for retelling my words and interpreting them so precisely.
Michael, I was not offended I only explained our position. As Old Catholics we see no reason to give up traditions (including heraldic ones) that are as much ours as they are romes. also the modern roman heraldic practicies are not used only by rome either but the majority of the western churches in apostolic sucession. and we do not adhear strictly to current roman practice as we do allow the use of the mitre and other banned (by the Holy See) adornments in the personal arms of our prelates, its just that in the case of a superior general there are no external adornments applicable besides the galero w/ tassels, and being as until 1704ish we we’re in full corporate communion with Rome, but free from roman interferance there has not been a time in our independent history where we did not have ecclesiastical heraldry in the roman form.
