Mos pro lege (usage has the force of law).
Mores are customary usages (unwritten laws). Such was always the case with the tiara on the papal coat-of-arms. Today there is some unecessary confusion as we sometimes see the mitre put in place of the tiara [as seen here] which clearly comes from a confused idea of collegiality.
With the death of Pope John Paul and the quick election of Pope Benedict the new arms of the newly elected Pontiff was printed on a square of white with no tiara and was simply attached over the former embroidered arms of tiara, keys and crest of Pope John Paul [as depicted in photo].
It has been five years already. Commission a new drapery with the new arms of the newly elected Pope embroidered with tiara, keys and crest and tell people why (cf. Lumen Gentium Chapter III: The Hierarchial Structure of the Church).
I agree with your sentiment expressed in several posts lately lamenting the absence of the tiara and its being replaced with a mitre. However, didn't the Holy Father himself choose to include a mitre in his own coat of arms, and not a tiara? Are you advocating that people use the tiara anyway? (Didn't some dicastery recently come out with a rule that no one is allowed to use symbols of the Holy Father without permission? I'd think that means that when they give permission, you have to use the official---with mitre---coat of arms, and not one with tiara.)
ReplyDeleteNot crest, but shield.
ReplyDeleteSo you consider His Holiness to follow "confused ideas"?
ReplyDeleteCouldn't it rather be that every small action he is doing will fit exactly into his huge masterplan? He is always doing small things that will have big impact in the future, like "Summorum Pontificum", like how the holy communion is spent during papal ceremonies and other small litugical changes, the "Regensburg speech", and I think as well the coat-of-arms can be added to that list, for some reason.
Ad multos annos, santissimo padre.
The change was Sodano's project. The expurgated tiara is just one of many concessions made by the Pope to keep peace. Equanimity is how these things are always viewed in the Vatican.
ReplyDeleteIt was Arch. Piero Marini.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I think the fact that the tiara is used in the gardens, on many of his vestments, and on at least one of his papal thrones, shows that he doesn't have a "master plan" when it comes to the mitre/tiara used in the original coat of arms. So, it's perfectly proper to show the coat of arms with the tiara, which is the traditional symbol of the papacy.
ReplyDeleteActually, the real reason for this change was described in "Inside the Vatican Magazine"(November 2005) by Mr. James C. Noonan, a specialist in ecclesiastic heraldry. Here are some pertinent excerpts:
ReplyDelete“Although Pope Benedict’s heraldic design certainly diverts from the millennium-old formula in papal armorial, none of the criticism of the new Pope’s arms accurately addresses the specific purpose for the deliberate changes in papal heraldic tradition. It should be stated once and for all that Pope Benedict’s heraldic design was purposefully intended to publicly honor his mentor, Paul VI. In fact, the mitre artistically adapted for the new papal coat-of-arms was one actually worn by Pope Paul at the close of the Second Vatican Council (thereafter known as the ‘Conciliar Mitre”) and which is now believed to be in the personal possession of Benedict XVI.”
“When Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) elevated Joseph Ratzinger to the Sacred College of Cardinals in public consistory in 1977, a unique bond of friendship quickly developed between two churchmen that few outside the Roman Curia realized existed. It was the last year of Paul’s life and thereafter Ratzinger never ceased to honor the Pope who had elevated him to high office. For his own part, Paul VI illustrated his esteem for Ratzinger by bequeathing to him a number of his own papal mitres when he died the following year. And so, when Joseph Ratzinger was elected to the papacy a few months ago, he offered one final tribute to the man who had promoted him to greatness.”
“And although Pope Benedict is the first Pope to abandon these time-honored emblems for himself (and once more one must be reminded that he has done so specifically in honor of Paul VI) it is not his intention to permanently overturn more than 800 years of Church tradition.
In fact, Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano has affirmed that the tiara and keys remain both the symbol of the Petrine Ministry and of the Roman Curia, thus assuring a proper return to this time-honored formula in future pontificates.”
Um, no, that design had nothing to do with "purposefully" intending to publicly honor anybody. Ratzinger himself wore the same model (from Gammarelli) when he himself was made bishop. And since when has that mitre been know by anybody as the "Conciliar Mitre” ? And it is not in the "personal possession" of Benedict XVI but is locked away in the treasury of St. Peter's.
ReplyDeleteI'm still trying to wrap my brain about Benedict (who would have the FINAL say) having a confused idea about collegiality. That statement strikes me as offensively arrogant and very ill-informed. Perhaps the writer of this blog hopes to illuminate our confused Holy Father...
ReplyDeleteI hate to write anything even of remote theological substance because readers often get confused and miss the boat...
ReplyDeleteI did not say that the Pope has or had a confused idea of collegiality.
It is many around him who do. In theological circles in Rome and elsewhere there is the idea that Vatican Council II introduced collegiality which somehow means that the popes are now just bishops like other bishops - often an attack on papal primacy. The truth is that this idea is not conciliar and that Lumen Gentium affirms that the Church is hierarchial (i.e. "He placed blessed Peter over the other apostles").
Noonan made up that explanation out of whole cloth and it is ridiculous. Benedict XVI is not the first one whose coat of arms has been depicted with a mitre instead of a tiara (I mean in modern times). There was a growing "movement" to try and rid the papal arms of the tiara in the pontificate of John Paul II. There is proof in Rome itself (perhaps, John, you could provide photographic proof). The arms of John Paul Ii were depicted on the floor of St. Peter's, on the exterior of the Swiss Guard barracks (facing the piazza Citta Leonina), on the rear (papal) entrance to the Paul VI Audience Hall and above one of the doorways in the papal apartment itself! (I was there more than once and saw it with my own eyes).
ReplyDeleteThose ignorant of heraldry but with an agenda were trying to claim that the mitre was a better symbol on the papal arms because the tiara was no longer actually worn.
I really think they prevailed on Benedict XVI in the days after his election and he went along because he was a) compromising and b) didn't really care that much one way or the other. One thing is certain however: he CLEARLY does not object to the various depictions that have arisen of his coat of arms with the tiara. So, I doubt he intended to be rid of it forever. I do not think the "official" version has been changed out of deference to Cardinal de Montezemolo who designed it.
If I may, a thing many "traditionally" inspired Catholics forget the idea of the prudence of the saints. Without "giving in", sometimes it is prudent to have seemingly given a point, without having really done so.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is no fool...
Yes, it was Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo who changed it.
ReplyDeleteThe change was explained in l'Osservatore Romano edition April 28, 2005.
Whether Mr. Noonan is correct or not, it seems no one on either side of this "debate" can offer actual facts and sources. There are lots of personal opinions and theories with no proof. I suppose the real story is known only by a select few, and they aren't talking!
ReplyDeleteCan anyone post a link to that L'OR article?
ReplyDeleteWhatever the reason I hardly see this as a Hermeneutic of Continuity. To a simple layman like myself it gives more to the illusion or fact that the Tiara is disappearing over time from the Papacy. And perhaps the next Pontificate will defer to the mitre out of respect for the current Holy Father, and the next as well, and so on and so on. How does that in any way restore a sense of Tradition if something almost disappears? It is not like the Pope has worn the Tiara once in a while and yet has temporarily removed it from his personal coat of arms. At least people would not have the illusion that it is all but gone.
ReplyDelete