Arms of Pope Francis

[JMcMillan]

Didn't Lucius II (1144-1145) the 166th pope and Anastasius IV (1153-1154) the 168th pope both have arms?

Assuming that Michel Pastoureau knows what he's talking about in saying that the first known coat of arms appears on a seal of 1146 belonging to Raoul of Vermandois (and I assume he does), it would be impossible for Lucius to have had a coat of arms. See http://heraldica.org/topics/origins.htm. And it would have been just unbelievably fast for heraldry to spread from the high feudal nobility of Picardy to the Roman patriciate in a matter of seven years.

Pastoureau found that the first pope actually to use arms was probably Innocent IV, a century after Lucius II. Arms attributed to his predecessors are merely that--attributed--often based on anachronistically assigning to 12th and early 13th century pontiffs the arms used by their families later on.

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

Be that as it may, it doesn't make Pope Francis's arms any prettier.

[GSelvester]

Didn't Lucius II (1144-1145) the 166th pope and Anastasius IV (1153-1154) the 168th pope both have arms?

They may have had arms attributed to them. Adrian IV does...

[Jonathan Webster]

I agree - I think that they are ugly.

I wonder why he even bothers. There is nothing doctrinally that compels him to have arms. The English Pope, Nicholas Breakspear (Adrian IV) did not have arms. He could just 'not have arms' and use the arms of the Vatican.

All very disappointing.

-unfortunately, that wouldn't follow; as the Arms of the Vatican City State and the Sovereign of the Vatican City State (ex officio the Pope) are not the same-presumably it has something to do with him being an elective monarch as well as the head of the Church-which is why the Arms of the Holy See and the Vatican City State are not identical either (the colours being reversed.)

In short, as the Pope's religious authority transcends national boundaries, he needs arms that show his religious authority across those boundaries. Using the arms of the Vatican City State would be inappropriate, as these arms are 'merely' the Arms of a sovereign state, and to use these arms as a symbol of Pope Francis' religious authority would imply that the Vatican City state has some kind of authority in these countries, which would be improper. Likewise as regards the arms of the Holy See.

[Chas Charles-Dunne]

There is nothing doctrinally that compels him to have arms.

I am quite sure that if television did not exist, he might not bother.

[Jonathan Webster]

Heraldry was as an artform almost moribund (note; almost) in the early nineteenth century. Popes could have not bothered with arms then, but they still did, for exactly the same reasons.

In my opinion, the new Papal Arms are pedestrian and unoriginal rather than all-out terrible.

[Ryan Shuflin]

Too bad they don't vote based on which cardinal has the best arms.

[GSelvester]

A rendering by Marco Foppoli. Very well done.

[Ton de Witte]

yes beautiful !

[Ryan Shuflin]

Wonderful, amazing how simple stylistic changes can make a coat of arms just come alive.