Friday, May 06, 2005

Vatican Web Site Features Coat of Arms

In recent weeks, much debate has arisen over the authenticity of Pope Benedict XVI's new coat of arms. Finally it looks like our questions have been answered, as the official Vatican Web site is now featuring the new coat of arms on this page. It looks just like the Wikipedia graphic that I posted about last week - mitre (not tiara), crossed keys, crowned Ethiopian, St. Corbinian's bear, shell, and pallium (although with red crosses, not black).

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, they went with a junk design, what a shame. But the Pope's coat of arms on the new flag for the Swiss Guards has his shield but is ensigned with the tiara and crossed keys, but no pallium. Look for a mish-mash of with/without designs, creating only confusion.

The design of Benedict's coat of arms is not rocket science, though it seems like simple conventions of heraldry could not be followed by the graphic-design wizards who came up with this achievement that is more in keeping with the arms of a Protestant bishop. There is not one thing on there that indicates the arms are that of a Catholic prelate, let alone the Supreme Pontiff. Chalk one up for mediocrity or incompetence, or both.

Dominic Foster said...

With all due respect, I hardly think the edifice of the faith will crumble around us because of the design of the new pope's coat of arms. And I would be careful about throwing around words like incompetence. He may have overseen its design himself for all we know. He at least had to approve it. Perhaps in your eyes the design is more in line with that of a Protestant bishop, but somehow I don't think caving in to a latent Protestantism will be an issue for Benedict XVI.

Anonymous said...

Dominic,

It's not just in my eyes that the design is more in line with that of a Protestant bishop. Just look at the armorial bearings of Anglican bishops and you'll see there is virtually no difference. The design is most assuredly against Catholic heraldic convention. All one need do is simply research it; read the late Archbishop Heim's authoritative work, Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origins, Customs and Law (1978), and you will see the issue is not even open to question.

No doubt the Holy Father approved the design, but (it would seem) without competent heraldic counsel. Benedict XVI is, by all accounts, an intellectual; academics like him generally do not concern themselves with mundane things such as a coat of arms. If archbishop so-and-so, a diletante with only fleeting knowledge of heraldry, advises him, Benedict is likely to go along. Do you really think the Holy Father has the time or inclination to research this for himself?

Of course we don't have to worry about caving in to a latent Protestantism; that's not an issue. And no, the edifice of the faith will not crumble either.

But from a herald's standpoint, this coat of arms is an artist disaster and ├Žsthetically unworthy of the Supreme Pontiff. You've heard of junk science? Well, this is the end result of junk heraldry.

If the ultimate design is not the result of incompetence or mediocrity, then it's a purposeful denigration of the time-honoured heraldic emblems of papal authority; someone then has a hidden agenda and the Holy Father is being hoodwinked. Symbols matter and always have in human history. What possible reason could there be for rendering the Pope's coat of arms unrecognisable from any other (Protestant) bishop?

SAR le Prince Justin said...

I must agree, as a lover and patron of the heraldic arts, I must say the new arms of Benedict XVI are not up to par with arms of past Pontiffs. One of my favorite papal arms are the Medici and Borgia. I was hoping the German eagle of black on gold would have been present. Popes who came from Venice often had the Lion of Saint Mark. It isn't the greatest arms ever.

Jeremiah said...

With all due respect, Anon., Protestant achievements look like Catholic ones because they inevitably derived from Catholic ones. So, who is copying whom? Benedict's arms maintain the Keys of the Kingdom, THE sign of the authority bestowed by Christ. They also have a pallium, significant of his headship and collegiality with the bishops of the world. Finally, the Mitre retains the symbolism of the triple tiara, just in the form of a mitre. I really don't understand the fuss. The biggest problem with it is it looks like it was drawn by an eighth-grade graphic arts student. That can always be fixed, though, in artistic renditions.

Anonymous said...

I hear what you are saying, Jeremiah, but for about 1,000 years the crossed keys have never appeared without the triregno, except during the sede vacante when the tiara is replaced with the ombrellino, also called the pavillion.

The mitre is sacred vesture and never appears in arms; the tiara is an emblem of office and does. The use of the mitre and/or crozier in the arms of prelates was formally prohibited by Pope Paul VI (Instr. Ut sive sollicite, 31 Mar. 1969, § 28). A mitre may only appear in diocesan arms, not those of a prelate.

The pallium, also sacred vesture, has never appeared on the arms of a Catholic prelate for at least 1,000 years. Archbishop Heim details this very clearly at pages 72-73 of his book, Heraldry in the Catholic Church (1978); Heim was the authority on ecclesiastical heraldry until his death.

One of the functions of armorial bearings is to indicate the rank of the holder, according to internationally accepted heraldic convention. The tiara and crossed keys mark the holder unmistakably as the Pope, whereas the crossed keys, mitre and pallium are all indicative of an Anglican bishop.

I will repeat what was posted before: Benedict's coat of arms as drawn presently is indistinguishable from the arms of an Anglican metropolitan. There is nothing on those arms to indicate that the bearer is even a Catholic prelate, let alone the Pope. The attempt at the stylised pointy mitre with the gold bands to imitate the triregno is an amateurish endeavour using an invented novel design that has no real significance.

And, yes, the artistic rendering looks like it was drawn by an eighth-grade art student.

We would not even be discussing this atrocious mess if Archbishop Heim was still alive. His death left a great void and, nature abhorring a vacuum, it has been filled by lesser talented individuals who either do not know the laws and conventions of heraldry or who do and don't really care.

BTW, even though Benedict has apparently chosen this novel, hybrid design for his personal arms, the tiara and crossed keys still remain the arms of both the Holy See and Vatican City.

Jeremiah said...

Dear Anon.,

Don’t get me wrong. I love the papal keys and triregno. It is, in my mind, distinctly papal; and am a little sad to see it go.

I have never seen achievements for Anglican/Episcopalian prelates or dioceses, though, which use the Keys of Peter. The closest I’ve come is to seeing one key crossed with a crozier. In any case, my argument still stands. If Anglicans are using them, it is only because Catholics used them first. I am not certain it is terribly convincing to argue that Benedict’s use of this form is not cool because Anglicans may use it.

Catholic prelates have indeed used the pallium in heraldry. The most famous is, of course, the arms of Thomas Becket. More recently, you can look at the post for Friday, 5/6 (“Pallia and Arms”) here: http://zadokromanus.blogspot.com/

One hopes that some real artists will step up and add a little depth to Benedict’s arms and clean them up a little bit. But, since they are now on all the banners, I doubt it.

I did notice the other day, though, that the new Swiss Guard flags had Benedict’s coat of arms on them, yet retaining the tiara. Interesting.

I wonder what could be done about instituting a Pontifical Commission for Heraldry. Maybe you enthusiast—whom I admire—can work towards this.

Anonymous said...

Anglican arms developed quite differently. Catholic heraldry did not really get going until the 16th and 17th centuries, so the arms of Catholic prelates developed separately. Remember, in England, and later Great Britain, the granting of arms is regulated by the state.

I do notice some archbishops indeed have their arms ornamented with the pallium. It is still heraldically speaking not "kosher," at least according to Archbishop Heim; if the pallium must appear, then he recommends it appear as a charge on the shield, rather than as an ornament outside of the shield, which is how the Anglicans handle it.

My point is that it may look "cool" for the Anglicans to use the pallium, but that adding it to Benedict's arms, without the triregno, renders the Holy Father's arms indistinguishable from an Anglican bishop or even an ordinary Catholic prelate. If you were not told that these arms are that of the Pope, there is no way visually to determine that. If anything, heraldry speaks to us in pictorial design and symbols, not words. What good is a coat of arms if the viewer cannot tell the rank of the bearer or who the bearer even is? You might as well dispense with the shield and simply insert the words "Benedictus PP. XVI," because you can't tell they are the arms of a Pope any other way.

These novel arms with the hybrid silver tribanded pointy mitre will only create confusion because the Holy Father's shield is already appearing with the triregno and without the pallium, as evidenced on the standard of the Pontifical Swiss Guard. The triregno will no doubt appear on the tapestry that hangs beneath the central loggia of St. Peter's and the smaller version from the Holy Father's third-floor apartment window.

The arms of the Holy See and Vatican City will remain the generic triregno and crossed keys, for to substitute the newly-designed pointy mitre would render those arms meaningless. Also note that in a pontiff's personal arms, the Or (gold) key appears with the mechanical element on the left and the Argent (silver) one on the right. But in the arms of the Holy See and Vatican City, the Or key appears on the right and the Argent on the left, although I'm not certain of the reason for this reversal. Interesting, though.

Pope John XXIII approached Archbishop Heim about creating a Pontifical Commission of Ecclesiastical Heraldry, but Heim demurred and felt that development was better left to custom and tradition. In retrospect, the good archbishop was wrong and John XXIII was right. If there was such an office, where coats of arms were granted by papal brief, then the artistically challenged and heraldically impoverished version of Benedict's achievement would not have occurred, and this thread therefore nonexistent.

BTW, I noticed yesterday on EWTN that the Holy Father's sash is still blank, no coat of arms sewn on yet. Perhaps they are tweaking the atrocious design a little, one hopes.

Jeremiah said...

Dear Anon.,

I will grant that you make some good points. I have not seen the Anglican prelates’ arms with both keys, but I will take your word for it that some exist as such. I do stand corrected that for the Archbishops of Canterbury, the pallium appears as a charge.

I think that Benedict’s arms have been so widely published that there will be little to no confusion as to whom they belong. But, I concede that the triregno, by force of tradition, would be a better visual symbol to that effect. One even begins to wonder, if the three gold ophries on the silver mitre symbolize the same thing as the triple tiara, why the triregno was removed at all.

The banner for the Apostolic Palace window has already been made, and the mitered, palliumed Coat of Arms appears on that banner. It was unveiled yesterday for the Regina Coeli Audience.

I would strongly support the institution of that Commission. For one, the Church is the great preserver of the arts, and heraldry in so many ways is just that. It would seem wise to protect that art in perpetuity. Secondly, having a body that could regulate and legitimize arms for the clergy would be a wonderful idea. There are clerics educated in this manner. I have seen a priest online from Metuchin, NJ by the name of Fr. Guy Selvester who seems rather adept in this area. One might consider sending an inquiry to the Vatican on the matter.

Caspar said...

I also was sad to see the tiara removed from the papal coat of arms, but I think the design of the shield itself is quite okay. The coat of arms the Pope used as he was a archbishop and cardinal are properly simplified and the colours red and yellow (gold) are those used by the Pope since the Middle Ages.

For your information I can say that the pallium is also used in the coat of arms of the archbishop of Utrecht (in The Netherlands), and probably in the arms of other archbishops too.

The use of the mitra and the pallium seems to be quite clear: instead of the regal tiara, the focus is now on the more pastoral and spiritual side of the Papacy...

Anonymous said...

Much ado about.... so little.

Anonymous said...

The Pope is the representative of the Son of Man. He would not concern Himself with a coat of arms as He redeemed the world. It is absurd to think any Pope should even need one.

Anonymous said...

"The Pope is the representative of the Son of Man. He would not concern Himself with a coat of arms as He redeemed the world. It is absurd to think any Pope should even need one."

Interesting theory. Obviously, the Church founded and continually guided by Jesus Christ, Her Head, has sought fit to use heraldry as a means to further spread the saving truth of the Gospel. But thank you for your opinion.

Mesenfants said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mesenfants said...

Sorry for the multiple posts. Do you think it is a theory the Jesus would not need a coat of arms?

Anonymous said...

I think "interesting theory" refers to "It is absurd to think any Pope should even need one."

Anonymous said...

I don't know anything about heraldry and could care less even if the Pope has a coat of arms. I did read thru this thread. I think it's obvious that this break with tradition probably signals an attempted covert take over of the papacy by the Freemasons. Clearly someone induced the Pope to remove the crown to be a not so subtle hint that there are demonic forces afoot to seize the papacy. How do we even know that Benedict XVI is really Cardinal Ratzinger. To me it looks like they may have put in an impostor to destroy the church from within. You all think the coat of arms is not such a big deal but I think it could signal that Benedict is in trouble and being surrounded by masonic forces. This is a real bad sign. God help us all!

Anonymous said...

speaking of absurd theories...

Anonymous said...

Caspar, how much more of a spiritual and pastoral Pope did we have than John Paul the Great, yet his coat of arms prominently fearured a richly ornamented tiara ensigning his shield?

The Pope is not just another bishop and he should have a coat of arms commensurate with his high office. One of his titles is, after all, "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church"; he is the Vicar of Christ, God's representative on earth.

This present state of affairs is what you get when you have an unknowledgeable or even incompetent heraldist tackling a task for which he is clearly out of his depth. Junk heraldry.

Anonymous said...

I love the Church, I love the Pope, both with my whole heart, but I don't like this coat of arms very much. I'm not very comfortable with it. And yes, it is important, because anything that pertains to the Holy Father is important. OTOH I don't think we should elaborate all kinds of far out conspiracy theories and the like (not that the Church is not under permanent siege, but She will always triumph as we know very well).Well, my 2c. here.

Anonymous said...

Having read through the discussion, I think we are missing a few crutial points. I too lament the loss of the triregnum which has been, along with the petrine keys, the symbol most often identified and used by the papacy. First: what we've seen in the unfolding of the papacy of Benedict XVI is the fulfillment of several modifications begun after Vatican II regarding the papal installation-which replaced the corronation with the triregnum-and perhaps more importantly for the present discussion, the modification of various symbols used by the Supreme Pontiff. Perhaps the clearest example of this is the restoration of a uniquely papal pallium. So part of what is going on, in my opinion, is a fulfillment of modifications that have been in the works for the past 40 years but were not able to be fully implemented due to the whilrwind year of three popes in 1978.
Second: While Archbishop Heim, of blessed memory, was indeed the preeminent scholar with regard to ecclesiastical heraldry for many, many years, we fail to recognize that, as Supreme Pontiff, the Pope has the authority to modify his heraldic achievement as he sees fit. Even the venerated Archbishop himself clearly acknowledged this in his dissaproval of a pontifical commission for ecclesiastical heraldry. Granted, tradition should not easily, or readily be changed, however, as with most liturgical norms, an allowance is made for custom to mold and work with tradition to be more pastoral in any given age. THis leads me to my last point: I do not believe that the Holy Father has been "hoodwinked" and am rather confident in saying that the modification from the triregnum to a mitre in his personal arms, as well as the addition of the pallium st the base of the achievement was at the explicit request of the Holy Father. Anyone who knows him and his personality and spirituality would agree. I think it is a continuing effort on the part of the Holy Father to display his own personal pastoral sensitivities as well as to reinforce the "Shepherd" image of the papacy - of which he spoke so eloquently in his discussion of the pallium at his instalation Mass.
What does all of this amount to - not much in the grand scheme of things. While I am sure that, in time, we will see more artistic renderings of his Arms, to say that they are indistinguishable from Protestant arms, etc. is overly simplistic insofar as we will, if by design alone, be able to recognize his armorial achievement as unique, and papal. Best regards.

Dominic Foster said...

The previous comment states in a more eloquent and theological (and less sarcastic) way the point I was trying to make earlier. I agree that the change in Benedict XVI's coat of arms reflects a self-conscious change in emphasis by recent popes, but that the rapid succession of popes in the year 1978 did not necessarily allow for those changes to be reflected either in ecclesiastical heraldry or in numerous other facets of the Church's life.

After all, Paul VI publicly forsook the tiara as a sign of papal authority. I don't think he or any of the subsequent pontiffs intended to "Protestantize" the Church's understanding of the papal office, as much as some may wish they would.

I do, however, think they are sensitive to the old adage, which is the last line of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, that "salvation of souls is the supreme law of the church." If they can accomplish that mission by being more regal, they will. If they can accomplish that by being more pastoral, they will do that. The recent changes in the externals surrounding the papacy, including ecclesiastical heraldry, may reflect not a radical departure, but a shift in theological and pastoral emphasis.

Anonymous said...

What idiocy. You blind men can't see how the 'smoke of Satan' has entered into the church and that this pope, if he really is Card. Ratzinger, has been 'hoodwinked'. This has the fingerprints of masonic conspiracy all over it just like the involvement of secret masonic lodge 'P2' in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal and Michael Sindona's murder. Just read the Book of Revelation. We are truly in the End Times and I fear we are watching the opening act of the destruction of the church. I hope it's not too late to save this pope from the dark forces at play here. God help us all!!!

Anonymous said...

Still trying to decide if the previous Anonymous is a master of satire, or needs to take his 5:00 meds.....

P.Langevin, Ph.L. said...

How rediculous, I posted the 8:59 blog about the "crutial points" and I must say, that it seems that some of us have missed even more. To speak of being "hoodwinked" by the "smoke of Satan", and a heraldic achivement being "the opening act of the destruction of the Church," I sincerely hope that our previous poster was writing in jest, else he should re-read the book of Revelation with an appropriate theological/scriptural understanding as he himself has fallen prey to the whims of idiocy. Best Regards.

Anonymous said...

Much ado about so little has gotten out of hand.

Anonymous said...

This is not "much ado about nothing", dear Anonymous immediately previous, as SYMBOLISM IS NEVER NOTHING IN THE HOLY ROMAN & CATHOLIC CHURCH (e.g., the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, the Architectural layouts of our Churches & their Sanctuaries, Sacred Vesments et cet.).

I--for the life of me, with all due respect and profound humility before the Sovereign Pontiff--cannot comprehend why an ardent Mediaevalist such as the new Holy Father, would himself want to dispense with the venerable Papal Tiara rich with its symbolism of the European Age of Faith.

I ASK THE PREVIOUS ANONYMOUS POSTER TO THIS THREAD WHETHER HE HAS ANY GENUINE AUTHORITY TO SAY THAT THIS INNOVATION WAS THE PERSONAL IDEA OF BENEDICT XVI, AND NOT THE CONCEPT OF THE NOBLE ABP. LANZA DI MONTEZEMOLO OR ANOTHER VATICAN INSIDER (WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES FOR SUCH A DEPARTURE FROM SYMBOLIC USAGE.).

I am in total disaccord with others who say that one must dispense with the Heraldic usage of the Triregnum due to its having fallen into desuetude in the Liturgical domain. One need only examine the continued use of the tasselled "galero" in the blazons/arms of the cardinals, bishops, and other prelates of the Church. Moreover, in the temporal plane, one no longer sees the actual physical usage of Royal or Imperial Crowns--except in the case of the British Sovereign--yet one sees the continual use of such crowns in the Heraldic Achievements of many global nations and their revival in many Eastern European nations--viz. Russia, as these nations understand the PROFOUND SYMBOLIC POWER OF THESE HERALDIC DEVICES TO CONNECT WITH THE CULTURAL HISTORY/ETHOS OF A GROUP OR PEOPLE OF WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE PARAMOUNT GLOBAL EXAMPLE!

This is but a STEPPING-STONE in further (or, POTENTIAL further) EROSION OF TRADITIONAL TYPOLOGICAL FIGURES OF THE PAPAL/PETRINE OFFICE, AND BY EXTENSION OF THE OFFICE ITSELF. This seemingly minor adaptation has far-reaching potential ramifications, as far as "future interpretation" of the meaning of this gesture.

This metaphorical abandonment of the Triregnum on the personal Coat-of-Arms/Blazon of Benedict XVI could pose not only significant present, but future ramifications for not only Papal Heraldry (perhaps, the Fount of European Heraldry), but for the future of the Ecclesial role of the Holy See & of future Roman Pontiffs.

Do not minimise this heraldic innovation in the Blazon of Pope Benedict XVI. SYMBOLISM, SIGNS AND SPIRITUAL METAPHOR ARE THE UNDERPINNING OF THE BELIEFS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous poster: Please expand on the connection with the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse! Perhaps, a tad bit hyperbolic.....

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I am being obtuse, but is anyone sure it is actually meant to be a mitre? It's not quite mitre-shaped. It's too bulbous. To me it just looks like an extremely stylised version of the tiara.

Chris said...

I checked all tiaras of the Vatican/ Holy Father sites. I find little difference. Benedict`s looks like a tiara to me, too. A bit more modern, these are not Michelangelo`s days anymore, three tier, gold and silver, just like the others.
Why don`t you check through the old ones there, too? Looks very familiar.

Anonymous said...

The pointy, bulbous (obscenely ridiculous) mitre is described by the (perhaps malicious) idiot, Arcbishop Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, in L'Osservatore Romano as a mitre and as a replacement of the triregno.

I agree with Anon. 3:15 p.m. that this is not much ado about nothing. Symbols matter, especially in the Catholic Church. If the substitution of the heraldically incorrect mitre for the tiara was truly intentional, then it undoubtedly signifies a denigration of the Petrine office and a dilution of papal prerogatives. Why else would the new Pope have arms that look like any other bishop, even a Protestant one?

It is inconceivable that a Holy Father with such a grasp of Church history as Benedict XVI would coutenance this degenerate nonsense. If the tiara also disappears from the arms of the Holy See and the Vatican--God forbid!--I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say we are seeing the end of the papacy and, with it, the end of the Catholic Church as she has been historically recognized.

Maybe that other Anon. poster isn't too far off in asking for God's help. Maybe this is signifying the end times, or at least the destruction of the Church. Once the tiara is completely banished, Christianity will follow shortly thereafter.

Anonymous said...

See, you'll find out soon enough. I'm not the only one. The 'smoke of Satan' is billowing in in fogs now. That last guy has it right. The Freemasons are at work here. Once the tiara goes it's truely the end of Christianity. Let us all pray fervently for Benedict XVI, he needs it now, his papacy may already be in the grip of the Evil One, and that's if Card. Ratzinger is even the Pope. He may very well be an impostor and God only knows what they've done with the real Papa Ratzinger! Everyone knows the real Pope would never have eliminated the tiara. This really is a battle of life and death for Christ's Church!

Anonymous said...

The Vatican Hompage lists
Leo XIII no shield
Pius X Lion and Anchor
Benedict XV Church and Eagle
Pius XII Dove

None of them with a tiara, and the Church wasn`t endangered then.

Georg Ratzinger didn`t complain that an imposter does the work, he is of the opinion that his brother works too much.

This is 3rd millenium and not the medivial days of the rose. Come on.

Anonymous said...

You people are crazy! So many words about such trivia. Get a life! Better still, get a job and do something useful.

Anonymous said...

Broad personal invective about what you term "trivia" & "crazy" is base and only reveals a philistine lack of appreciation of history and symbol in Holy Mother Church. Perhaps we should all moderate the tone of our comments, but many here--maybe not all--are deadly serious about the topics that we discuss.

Anonymous said...

I'm Anonymous 5/7/2005 10:00 p.m. and think we need to get a little back to reality. Yes, symbols do matter and I don't think this is a trivial matter. But this masonic conspiracy stuff belongs in the Twilight Zone. I love the triregno but its absence does not herald the Antichrist, the end of the Church or that "Benedict XVI" isn't really Benedict XVI (with the real Cardinal Ratzinger secreted away in some dungeon, I suppose). I'm just waiting for a post to "link" this all to the Knights Templars and maybe a reference or two to that awful book, The DaVinci Code.

As for a previous Anonymous who notes no ensigning of the shields of former Popes with the tiara and keys on the Vatican webpage, respectfully, that means nothing. Every pontiff has his own shield but the tiara and crossed keys always indicate the rank of the bearer. If you can, locate Archbishop Heim's book, Heraldry in the Vatican. It's a pictorial guide to the heraldry you'll see in the Vatican and around Rome. Virtually every picture shows a pontiff's arms ornamented with the triregno and crossed keys.

My point previously was, why give the Holy Father a coat of arms that looks (though incorrectly) like any other bishop, even a Protestant bishop? You can't tell the bearer's rank by the pointy mitre. The galero is proper to indicate a Catholic prelate's rank, not the mitre, so as a cardinal, Papa Ratzinger's shield was ornamented with the multi-tassled red galero. Now that he's Pope, do we put in a white galero? How many tassles? You see, the tiara with crossed keys--which is the time-honoured device--solves any ambiguity.

The change had to be made either out of ignorance (or poor taste), or purposefully, and in the latter instance there is then some hidden agenda (other than stupidity).

Anonymous said...

Was the change made because there is a change in thinking? The tiara hasn`t been worn by several popes. Popes are not carried any more, they use papamobiles.
I read what the Pope says. He wants help reigning. He wants peace on earth with the different faith. John Paul II. met a long time ago with Jews, Moslems etc. These changes are there all along. The world was flat before JP II, now it is round, the way Galileo showed it.
Now not only the cardinals came, but a newly-wed couple and young children. Now there is a tiara painted on a mitre on the coat of arms.

We only have one earth and there is only one God.
It was said: Have no fear.
There are so many fearful comments.
I trust Papa Ratzi, he has seen and approved of his coat of arms before it was shown to us.
The world doesn`t break down.

Anonymous said...

Papa Ratzinger is in mortal danger. Don't you people know anything of the power of the Freemasons in the Church? They've infiltrated all levels of power, the hierarchy, etc., very grave. It may be too late for this holy man, he may have been replaced already! The destruction of the tiara prefigures the destruction of the Church, mark my words. The Evil One is at hand.

Anonymous said...

Blessed Pope Pius IX is surely rolling over in his Tomb about now!

Examine the latest comments of the Rev'd Augustine di Noia, under-secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This Vatican official intimated in an interview released today & published in the Guardian, that the SYMBOLIC MOVE from Triregnum to this hybrid mitre is SIGNIFICANT AND INDICATIVE OF A DILUTION OF PAPAL POWER & DEVOLUTION THEREOF TO THE EPISCOPATE. The truth now is revealed that this change was not in fact benignly fortuitous but rather politically deliberate.

As to whether the Holy Father, Benedict XVI himself designed this RADICAL SYMBOLIC SHIFT, I am still in doubt. I believe that the impetus came from progressive Vatican insiders WITH FAR-REACHING POLITICAL AGENDAS FOR THE PAPACY BEYOND THE REIGN OF BENEDICT XVI. THIS HERALDIC/SYMBOLIC SHIFT WILL BE CITED AGAIN FOR FUTURE (RE-)EVOLUTION AT THE HOLY SEE.

How interesting it is that the ancient art of Heraldry has been utilised in such a deliberate way for ulterior motives.

Voici le Vicaire du Christe, le Vice-Roi du Roi des Rois sans Couronne! C'est le cas-limite de "la Revolution en Tiare et en Chape"(cf. "L'Eglise romaine et la Revolution", Cretineau-Joly.): c'est le Decouronnement final et symbolique du Souverain Pontiffe...et de LUI QU'IL REPRESENTE SUR LA TERRE....

Anonymous said...

I'm glad that I'm not the only one here railing against this insanity. We are watching the opening act of the destruction of the papacy. I predict that in ten years from now the Pope will be seen as no more than a 'first among equals', the leader of just another Christian church no better or worse than any other sect or denomination, that's if the papacy even survives that long.

As goes the papacy so goes Christianity. If the papacy is 'taken down' from within, all of Christianity will soon follow. You doubt this is the End Times? The armies of Darkness are now encamped within the walls of the Apostolic Palace!

Just who is this vile little cockroach, Rev. Augustine di Noia, under-secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Do you now doubt that the Freemasons will stop at nothing to destroy the Church? This malignant dwarf Rev. Di Noia should be purged. How could Benedict XVI actually sanction this satanic insanity... but maybe Card. Ratzinger is NOT even Benedict XVI. Or maybe Card. Ratzinger has been a 'mole' of the Freemasons all along!

Action must be take, but I don't know how, before this becomes a cataclysm that ends all of Western Civilization. This is no exaggeration, this is a life and death struggle with Satan and his minions! The forces of evil have decisively won the opening battle over the Holy Father's coat of arms. Look to Archbishop Piero Marini as the architect of the destruction of the papacy. He must be stopped!

Anonymous said...

No, no, no, dear last anon. THE CHURCH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL. You (and other posters) seem to forget the words of Our Lord in Mark 28:20. If you believe in GOD, then you know that the Church WILL NEVER BE VANQUISHED. As simple as that :p

Anonymous said...

Sorry, in my previous post, the quote was not from St.Mark, but from St. Mathew. Same numbers: 28:20.

Anonymous said...

Some of these comments appear to have been written by people who are mentally unstable. Referring to someone as “a vile cockroach” and “a malignant dwarf”, apart from being appallingly rude, reveals a degree of obsession which is distinctly unhealthy. To then write that “Rev. Di Noia should be purged” is lunacy. One can only hope that this whole exchange is a joke.

This site has, until now, featured many balanced and intelligent comments. It even predicted that Joseph Ratzinger would be Pope. This particular subject seems to have brought some very strange people out of the woodwork. If they consider themselves the defenders of the church it is no wonder so many people are turned off.

Incidentally, it is Matthew and not Mathew (the quote is incorrect in any case) and making extensive use of capitals is uncouth.

Anonymous said...

I agree, to the previous poster. This site seems to have jumped the shark with this long thread of conspiracy and fixation on the coat of arms. Pope Benedict (a self-described humble man)in his inaugural sermon emphasized his role as shepherd. He is the Bishop of Rome. His coat of arms emphasizes those two facts. Those keys there indicate the Petrine office. No mistaking him for being a simple bishop. Perhaps his focus will be on the attempts at reunifying the Eastern Orthodox bishops with Rome, and his humble approach will effect that greater good. Did the posters miss the significance of having the Gospel account of the keys read in Greek at his installation mass? Quibbling over the grandiosity of a papal coat of arms seems to be missing the point of who this man truly is, and what he's about. You can be quite sure the dismantling of the papacy is not on his agenda. Nor is he the unwitting puppet of anyone in the Vatican.

Now can we go back to the more normal posts we had before?

Jimbo said...

Normal posts? Hmmm... yes, let's do that.

Anonymous said...

Odium theologicum heraldicumque....

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the abandonment of the Papal Tiara in the new coat-of-arms is part of the rumoured compromise agreement between Card. Ratzinger the integristi & the defeated Card. Martini the riformisti:

"The election arranged by the strong Frank,
Will nullify that of Milan to whom he objects...."

Nostradamus: Century VI, Quatrain 87.

Anonymous said...

At least the (Catholic) Patriarch of Lisbon is still using the triregno!
http://www.patriarcado-lisboa.pt/entrada.htm

Anonymous said...

How ironic! The quintessential emblem of the papacy, the triregno, is depicted on the arms of the Patriarchate of Lisbon and features prominently on the website, but now is missing from the arms of the reigning Supreme Pontiff. The inmates are truly running the asylum.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know of any Prophetic References to be offered in relation this issue of the disappearance of the Triregnum/Papal Tiara from ceremonial and/or heraldic usage of the Supreme Pontiffs? Some of the previous posters to this thread have alluded thereto (e.g., Nostradamus; Fatima Secrets; Freemasonry: it is also well-known that the Papal Tiara (& its desecration) does form part of many secret rites of Freemasonry (--related to me personally by a Protestant buddy who is, unfortunately, a member of the deMolay order)...any ideas...?

Anonymous said...

Don't have much to offer, other than the obvious, i.e. that Freemasonry is about as satanic and demonic as you can get. If the Antichrist is afoot, you better believe the Freemasons are in on it.

Benedict XVI's papacy is not off to an auspicious start, witness the farce of his new coat of arms. I'm afraid orthodox, traditional minded Catholics will be sorely disappointed with this papacy. Why in the world would Benedict appoint Archbishop Levada to be prefect of Doctrina Fidei unless the Holy Father has lost his mind? It's all very depressing. Cardinal Arinze, where are you now that we need you?

We'll have to trust in the Holy Spirit, pray and hope for the best. Now if we could resurrect Boniface VIII, that'd be wild!

Dominic Foster said...

Pretty bold analysis considering he's been on the job less than a month. At least an American president gets a 100 day honeymoon. Surely the pope deserves at least that.

DD said...

Extensive study has shown me that our dear Pope St. Peter has no coat of arms at all! And he has completely repudiated the precedent set for crucifixion by insisting on being martyred upside down, completely the antithesis of the way Jesus Christ was crucified. I fear there is a plot afoot. His liberal rule change in letting uncircumcized heathens into the Church has resulted in a watering down of Christianity, and I predict the immediate collapse of the papacy and a downhill slide of the Church.

Dominic Foster said...

Well said, DD.

Anonymous said...

Dominic Foster and DD can parody and make fun, but don't underestimate the seriousness of what has been done to denigrate the papacy.

The Vatican is a nest of malignant gnomes and intellectually stunted dwarfs who will stop at nothing in pursuit of their despicable agenda of modernism and nefarious deconstruction of the Catholic faith.

It's not the 'smoke of Satan' anymore, it's a veritable cloud of putrid fog enveloping Holy Mother Church. What can we do to stop it? Pray and hope for the best. It will be an ugly battle with the monstrous forces of depravity.

Anonymous said...

Will someone please bring this tedious thread to an end? The author of the previous post is clearly in need of a long holiday in a secure institution. This blog is turning into crazy corner. Let’s make an end to the use of this kind of insulting and deluded language and return to sensible discussion.

Anonymous said...

I fear this thread will continue until either the tiara is restored or we experience the Second Coming!

Anonymous said...

Yes, the tiara must be restored. I haven't been able to get a decent night's sleep since this farce ensued. My nights have been haunted by this. Unless something is done to correct this travesty of correct heraldry, I fear I will be driven to distraction. Am I taking this too seriously?

Anonymous said...

One short answer - Yes! Try Valium.

Anonymous said...

Easy for you to say. I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown and I don't want to get hooked on drugs. I'm trying not to fixate on this but I feel the farce of Benedict's new coat of arms is symptomatic of the end of the papacy as we know it.

DD said...

I don't mean to make light if your worries are genuine. But didn't Christ promise that the Papacy was the rock on which he built His Church, and "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it?" So that means a coat of arms will blow it away like a feather in the wind?

Christ didn't have a coat of arms. Here is the test, according to Christ: "By your fruits you shall know them." He didn't say, "By their coat of arms you shall know them."

I personally love the little bear and the seashells. ;-)

cavalier7 said...

Agree about Tiara. However, other comments about the Arms are off mark. The shield, its charges, and overall design -- to include the style of the artwork -- are all very typical of German heraldry. In the United States, we have a tendency to think of British hearldy as the standard, but this is far from true. Of course, Italian heraldry has formed the basis for Vatican usage over the past 500 years or so. Personally, I never much liked Italian heraldry, and find the switch to German heraldry for a German Pope to be both suitable and refreshing. The charges themselves come from Ratzinger's previous arms as Archbishop of Munich-Freising and they are rendered in a style very typical of armory north of the alps. It is considered to be in conformity with the style of the high middle ages.

Everyone has their own tastes, and some people actually LIKE the Italianate style. While throwing stones, however, it should be remembered that many heraldists were appalled at JP2's design. However, his pattern was very reminiscent of Polish armory (go figure) with an unfortunate dose of modern art.

With the exception of the mitre in lieu of the tiara, I quite like it!

Giancarlo007 said...

I have no problem with the shield, it is very northern European. I think replacing the tiara with this hideous looking mitre was a mistake. Of course, some of the previous posts really border on the hysterical and unhinged.

searchforthetruth said...

The New Defender of the Faith has a motto. Palm 133. Is this not the initiation rite of an entered appentice for the Masonic Lodge? Too close to be coincidence here. We have a duty to be vigilant for our sake and the sake of our children.

searchforthetruth said...

That is Psalm 133