I recently perused a copy of The Church Visible.  In it, James-Charles Noonan suggests that Catholic deacons do not use the tassel-less black galero, but instead surmount their arms with a lidded ciborium.  I knew that Catholic deacons didn’t “officially” get up use the galero – the innovation of the tassel-less black one being Anglican – but the use of a lidded ciborium atop the shield seems a little odd.  Has anyone ever seen this done in practice?  Why is there an opposition to Catholic deacons using the tassel-less black galero?  It seems to be the logical progression.

EDIT

I found two mentions online:

http://gryphonrampant.blogspot.com/2012/05/coat-of-arms-church-and-deacons.html

http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/09/jg-schtz-family-coat-of-arms.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D9qsuBCzZzY/T8AynN_TJrI/AAAAAAAAAxk/-fdGr40ojWk/s320/klimeckiarmsample3.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_adq7m_m52Qg/SM5ZFAamVlI/AAAAAAAABFY/m68EAEFQspE/s400/diaconal+coat+of+arms.JPG

The ciborium is more than odd. It’s rubbish. Noonan made that up entirely. I have no idea why he thinks this is a fitting heraldic external ornament for deacons. IF deacons are going to use a coat of arms AND they want the arms to have an ecclesiastical external ornament then the galero with no cords or tassels does make the most sense.

However, it is important to note that as married men who have families (at least many of them are and do) they could fittingly make use of helm, mantle and crest as their arms may be inherited by their direct descendants as opposed to the celibate clergy who have no children. In addition, as I have been pointing out for years they may also make use of a coat of arms that has simply shield and motto or shield, motto and crest without helm or mantling.

It is very important to remember that if a Deacon is married with children and his children inherit his arms they do NOT inherit the use of a galero or any external ornament indicating the rank of Deacon. This preposterous ciborium and humeral veil that Noonan proposes could easily be mistaken for mantling and crest (depending on how it is depicted) and then used by later generations when it was intended to indicate a rank they do not possess!

The use of a ciborium and humeral veil has no official sanction whatsoever by the Church and is the sole invention of James Noonan. (as in the bend in chief or on a chief which, Noonan feels, alludes to the stole worn across the breast in the manner of a deacon which, again, would then be inherited by someone who is descended from a deacon but is not necessarily a deacon him/her self.)

Interesting topic & links.  It would seem to me (neither Catholic nor Anglican, but respectful of both) that a married deacon (or any clergyman whose church does not require celibacy) could have two versions of the same arms—

one with helm & crest, for use in non-clerical contexts, which his siblings, kids & cousins could use in that form, just as any layman’s arms;

and one with the eccesiastical hat or other additaments appropriate to his current position in his church - e.g. galero, with or without tassels, as appropriate; or mitre for Anglican bishops—for use in his role as priest, deacon, or whatever, and of course not inherited or used by anyone family members in that form.

As an aside, this practice might help discourage the IMO unfortunate practice of clergy reinventing their personal arms each time they change rank or charge (parish or diocese).

gselvester;97131 wrote:

The ciborium is more than odd. It’s rubbish. [...] IF deacons are going to use a coat of arms AND they want the arms to have an ecclesiastical external ornament then the galero with no cords or tassels does make the most sense.

Enthusiastically seconded. As I already mentioned on another thread, the galero with a single loop-shaped cord without tassels, as established for the deacons of the Theutonic Order (on the advise of the late Dr Wehner), is a reasonable option as well, especially because it differs from the Anglican version.

Meanwhile I would like to object (respectfully, and just partially) my learned namesake’s suggestion regarding two coats-of-arms for the married clerics (the helmeted one being for the use in non-clerical context). A cleric is a cleric is a cleric. When a married cleric kisses his wife, he still remains a cleric. He never must behave as a non-cleric, right? In this sense, I see no non-clerical context to use the helmeted version in.

Of course a married cleric may like to get a crested helmet to transfer it to his children, but it is the same as if a priest was ordained as a widower, after begetting a legal posterity. Such a cleric may need to have this temporal stuff but not for himself, not for his own personal use.

This being said, I must add that in my personal opinion a helmet, a crest and a’ that are not out of place in clerical arms. In the Orthodox clerical practice, I am inclined towards encouraging their use. However in the Catholic heraldry, and especially in the Roman Catholic heraldry, there is a consistent trend which opposes the inclusion of the "Ueberwappen" into an achievement of a cleric (or even of a professed religious), and I do not see why this trend should not be followed, at least for the sake of keeping the common logic.

Michael, perhaps our disagreement re: arms for a deacon arises from different understandings of what it means to be a deacon.  In the Catholic and Anglican traditions (or Orthodox—I don’t know) , it may be different—but in some Protestant denominations, just as ministers or pastors aren’t "priests" in the Catholic or Anglican sense, deacons aren’t ministers or pastors, or even "trainees" for the pastorate.  In some denominations, the deacons are the elected lay leaders of the congregation—collectively the governing board of directors.  In Presbyterian churches, where the minister is technically ordained as a "teaching elder" and the elected lay leaders (the governing board) are ordained as "ruling elders," the deacons are laymen chosen and ordained to serve the needs of the congregation & community—feed the hungry, visit the sick, and so on—based on the use of the term in the Book of Acts.

But generally all except the minister/pastor (and in poorer churches, even they), while ordained to their special calling, are still part-time responsibilities.  These deacons still have to have a "day job" to support self and family, unless retired on a pension from one’s former day job—and in that lay capacity, it would IMO be inappropriate to sport or trade on one’s clerical identity in the conduct of one’s private and family affairs.

Note that I’m not arguing for or against any particular form of church organization; merely noting that there are differences, and that one’s heraldry should IMO reflect those differences.  It may be that my suggestion of dual arms would not "fit" the circumstances of a Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox deacon—if so, I withdraw the suggestion for those deacons—but there are other "flavors" of deacons for whom the suggestion may still be applicable.

Dear Michael, thank you for the clarification; I do understand this your opinion now. In the "traditionalist" churches, to be an ordained cleric is more than a function: it is a permanent quality; and my earlier remark about the dual arms referred to the Catholic clergy only.

The distinction isn’t IMO in whether one is a "temporary" or "permanent" deacon or elder or minister—at least some Protestant traditions e.g. Presbyterian tradition (where both of my parents, and my brother & sister-in-law,  were first ordained deacons, and later ordained ruling elders) IIRC once ordained, you’re a deacon or whatever for life, whether or not actively serving at any given time, unless the ordination is invalidated for violation of your vows.  However, except for actively serving ministers ("teaching elders"), it’s a part-time job; and IMO use of the clerical additaments in one’s private, non-church-related personal affairs would be inappropriate, just as I would look askance at any clergyman using their clerical status to claim special treatment in their private lives.  (Or for that matter, a teacher or policeman or any other position of public trust.)

This concern may be unlikely for a celibate full-time clergyman e.g. a Catholic priest or deacon (IIRC essentially a full-time trainee priest), who hopefully has no personal non-clerical role, responsibilities or entanglements comparable to a part-time Protestant deacon or elder with a day job, debts, wife, kids and in-laws

Again, not commenting on the ultimate merits of either system, just noting certain practical differences which IMO warrant somewhat different heraldic arrangements.

It’s so obvious.  Deacons of whatever flavor should display blue galeri.  Steely Dan explains:

They got a name for the winners in the world

I want a name when I lose

They call Alabama the Crimson Tide

Call me Deacon Blues.

Roll, Tide, Roll!

:D

Joseph McMillan;97223 wrote:

It’s so obvious.  Deacons of whatever flavor should display blue galeri.

IIRC Chinese bishops use blue galero instead of the usual green since “wearing a green hat” is some sort of cultural insult in China.  I could be completely misremembering this…

steven harris;97225 wrote:

IIRC Chinese bishops use blue galero instead of the usual green since “wearing a green hat” is some sort of cultural insult in China.  I could be completely misremembering this…

Not blue. They use a red or purple one.