Chinese Cardinals CoA

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

These are after all Roman Catholic clerics and should not be producing any children to whom they would pass down their arms.

Where does it say in the small print that one should only acquire arms in order to pass them on to one's children. I have arms but no children. More importantly for the purposes of this thread, the Pope has arms but no children.

I do not understand your argument. Arms are inheritable; it is an intrinsic part of what arms are.

You have arms, but no children. But that wasn't in the small print of your job description, was it? It is in theirs and not hidden in the small print either.

The fact that the Pope bears arms is more down to tradition than anything else. That having been said, the first arms displayed were strange to say the least. Was that a mitre or a triple tiara and why did it not look like either one?

[GSelvester]

These are after all Roman Catholic clerics and should not be producing any children to whom they would pass down their arms.

Where does it say in the small print that one should only acquire arms in order to pass them on to one's children. I have arms but no children. More importantly for the purposes of this thread, the Pope has arms but no children.

I do not understand your argument. Arms are inheritable; it is an intrinsic part of what arms are.

True, but it is only a part. Arms are inheritable as long as there is someone to inherit them. If there are no offspring then the arms aren't inheritable. What is primary for a coat of arms is that it be a distinguishing mark of identification. Clerics make use of arms as a means of identification that is unique to them. It is more than mere tradition that causes the Pope and other prelates and clerics to use a coat of arms. In addition, many popes (and other clerics) may have no descendants to whom they can pass a coat of arms but many inherited their arms from their fathers and grandfathers, etc.

My point is that I would put it to you that what is intrinsic to a coat of arms is that they be a clear and unique mark of identification. That they are inheritable is the tradition. It is accidentally true that among the other things that one may inherit from his father is included his distinctive mark of identification called his coat of arms. But, in the end one has a coat of arms to use as a personal mark of identification not so that someone may inherit it. Rather, it just so happens that if one has descendants they may inherit it from you.

Getting back to the original point the Church does not wish to legislate on the designs on the shield for artistic reasons not for genealogical reasons. In addition, it doesn't want to get involved in granting, recording and regulating arms precisely because it does not wish to usurp the role (in many places) played by state-sponsored and/or privately chartered heraldic authorities who do this. Since the Church is Universal and supra-national it would be a mess.

[steven harris]

True, but it is only a part. Arms are inheritable as long as there is someone to inherit them. If there are no offspring then the arms aren't inheritable. What is primary for a coat of arms is that it be a distinguishing mark of identification. Clerics make use of arms as a means of identification that is unique to them. It is more than mere tradition that causes the Pope and other prelates and clerics to use a coat of arms. In addition, many popes (and other clerics) may have no descendants to whom they can pass a coat of arms but many inherited their arms from their fathers and grandfathers, etc.

My point is that I would put it to you that what is intrinsic to a coat of arms is that they be a clear and unique mark of identification. That they are inheritable is the tradition. It is accidentally true that among the other things that one may inherit from his father is included his distinctive mark of identification called his coat of arms. But, in the end one has a coat of arms to use as a personal mark of identification not so that someone may inherit it. Rather, it just so happens that if one has descendants they may inherit it from you.

A well-made point.

Getting back to the original point the Church does not wish to legislate on the designs on the shield for artistic reasons not for genealogical reasons. In addition, it doesn't want to get involved in granting, recording and regulating arms precisely because it does not wish to usurp the role (in many places) played by state-sponsored and/or privately chartered heraldic authorities who do this. Since the Church is Universal and supra-national it would be a mess.

I see no reason why a Church herald could not work with, rather than "usurp", a state herald. It is true that it wouldn't be the easiest relationship to foster - but anything is better than the so-called "heraldry" that started this thread.

[Tomasz Steifer]

They are correct with regards to the external ornaments used so Rome won't care. Those are the only regulations with which Rome concerns itself. The Holy See is NOT going to get into the business of regulating the design of a coat of arms (i.e. what is on the shield). They simply aren't interested.

And there were (contemporary) attempts to interest Vatican on this initiative, or to indicate the need for such an institution?

I think it's important, though marginal. Badly coats of arms reduce the prestige of the Church, which is especially important in times of many media attacks on the Church.

[JMcMillan]

And there were (contemporary) attempts to interest Vatican on this initiative, or to indicate the need for such an institution?

I believe Archbishop Heim argued unsuccessfully for such an institution. I leave it to others to judge whether that counts as contemporary in the timescale of Church and heraldic history.

I think it's important, though marginal. Badly coats of arms reduce the prestige of the Church, which is especially important in times of many media attacks on the Church.

I have a hard time imagining a TV talk show discussion along the lines of "You might criticize Bishop Z for his pigheaded opposition to lesbian priests, but you have to admit he has a great coat of arms." Or "Archbishop N's opposition to dispensing birth control in church-run clinics is a crime against fundamental human rights...and have you seen that awful unheraldic seal he uses?"

I can, however, easily imagine this: "The Catholic Church has [this problem, that problem, the other problem], and the Pope is worrying about heraldry? Really?"

N.B. The opinions expressed in these imaginary monologues should not be imputed to me.

[Chris Green]

I believe Archbishop Heim argued unsuccessfully for such an institution

Although the Roman Catholic Church's leading heraldic expert in the latter part of the 20th century, Archbishop Heim actually opposed the idea of a Papal Heraldic Authority.

[JMcMillan]

I believe Archbishop Heim argued unsuccessfully for such an institution

Although the Roman Catholic Church's leading heraldic expert in the latter part of the 20th century, Archbishop Heim actually opposed the idea of a Papal Heraldic Authority.

I stand corrected. In any case, and regardless of my confusion as to who was on which side, the idea was considered and rejected roughly 50 years ago, which is just yesterday in herald years.

[GSelvester]

I can, however, easily imagine this: "The Catholic Church has [this problem, that problem, the other problem], and the Pope is worrying about heraldry? Really?"

That is precisely what the NY Times would say! Precisely!

[Tomasz Steifer]

And there were (contemporary) attempts to interest Vatican on this initiative, or to indicate the need for such an institution?

I believe Archbishop Heim argued unsuccessfully for such an institution. I leave it to others to judge whether that counts as contemporary in the timescale of Church and heraldic history.

I think it's important, though marginal. Badly coats of arms reduce the prestige of the Church, which is especially important in times of many media attacks on the Church.

I have a hard time imagining a TV talk show discussion along the lines of "You might criticize Bishop Z for his pigheaded opposition to lesbian priests, but you have to admit he has a great coat of arms." Or "Archbishop N's opposition to dispensing birth control in church-run clinics is a crime against fundamental human rights...and have you seen that awful unheraldic seal he uses?"

I can, however, easily imagine this: "The Catholic Church has [this problem, that problem, the other problem], and the Pope is worrying about heraldry? Really?"

N.B. The opinions expressed in these imaginary monologues should not be imputed to me.

I understand the nature of these examples, humorous expression. Wrote - it's a marginal matter, especially towards other problems RC Church. But does that mean that we should not try to deal with it?
We,the IAAH, is not likely to grind a major impact on the Pope, on issues such as celibacy and women priests. But in matters of heraldry can provide valuable, kind and wise counsel, even the Holy Father

[Ryan Shuflin]

If they just had an expert to which clerics could apply to, that would greatly increase the quality of arms. As a monarch with a court and a sovereign head of state and Grand Master of several orders, should he not have a herald and record some arms? Obviously, it is easier said than done, and I don't really understand the system of government involved with all the things the Pope is involved with.