Talk:Coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Moved content[edit]

Much of the content here has been moved from the file Image:Coabxvi.png. Although I have an interest in this topic, I am not well versed in heraldry. If you are, please feel free to correct any errors I may have made. --Eoghanacht 17:42, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Britannic emphasis problematic[edit]

We could usefully re-phrase certain sections so that the article doesn't seem to comment upon or describe the arms from a British standpoint. Continental conventions differ from the British ones. (I say this from the standpoint of an academic background and continuing research in heraldry.) The disadvantage to be wary of is if the article ends up unintelligible or misleading to readers who might be reading it with British backgrounds. --69.143.11.35 13:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give it your best shot! One of the hardest things about writing is keeping a topic relevant to multiple readers. Just ask yourself, will a middle school student, a college educated middle-ager, and an experienced herald all find the revised article (at least different parts of it) interesting and informative. --Eoghanacht 15:57, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Compromise?[edit]

Where does this information about the camelaucum and it's coat of arms come from? I could find no other information whatsoever about it anywhere on the web. It would seem that someone just drew it up and put it on the page. I would like to be proven wrong, as the idea intrests me, but I suggest it be taken down until further proof of the idea's veracity can be shown.

Found it on the American Heraldry Soc. discussion page, see "References" or follow this link [1]. --Eoghanacht 13:53, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Just because a web forum thinks something should be a certain way should not qualify it for inclusion. Since COAs are regulated by different organizations and obviously by monarchs who use them, only those statements should be listed on this page. If anyone has any proof that the vatican is considering other variants like the crown or the camelaucm (letterheads with it, press releases about it, etc) those should be included, not the thoughts of random individuals. Mbisanz 23:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
A compromise between whom and whom ... you think that Vatican will engage negociations with the American Gerialdry Soc. forum members ? Hektor 11:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the camelaucum is not speculation or personal opinion. It is historical fact. Just because you couldn't find reference to it on the web doesn't mean anything. Try going to a library and doing some REAL research. Look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, a book entitled "Papal Heraldry" by Galbreath published in the early 20th C., Woodward's "Ecclesiastical Heraldry" which dates from the late 19th C., Michael McCarthy's "Manual of Ecclesiastical Heraldry" and Bruno Heim's "Heraldry in the Catholic Church". There is plenty of source material out there about this! Inpectore 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact versus Speculation[edit]

Is it right for a topic to mix facts with speculations and proposals?

I believe the page should be oriented firstly to describe the COA, them to discuss it.

Liturgiological Perspective[edit]

Liturgists and liturgiologists, both liberal and conservative, have been quite excited by the developments in the arms, in large part because they emphasise the Pope's primary role, that of Bishop of Rome. The elements considered "new" are not new to the bearings of bishops; therefore it is incorrect to speak of them as new, except in references to the papal arms themselves. Further research into papal armorial bearings might well also prove that these elements are not foreign to papal use.

Chinese character similarites[edit]

The golden part can be read as a single chinese character (wang) or japanese kanji (oo etc.): 王. This character means king or ruler etc. and is used in combinations that mean vatican 法王庁, pope 法王 etc.

(This was added to the article by user:T0ky0, but was later removed. Seemed interesting enough to add here, though.)

The similarity of the golden part of the mitre with 王 is an interesting association, but I question if it is relevant for the article, since nothing in the literature indicates that this meaning was intended by the designer and therefore is just coincidental. We shouldn't include any interpretation which was not intended. If nobody objects I am going to remove it within seven days. Gugganij 21:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gruss Got. Please go ahead and remove if you think that is best. What is interesting for Wikipedia to show to non-Chinsese, non-Japanese etc. readers is how the overwhelmingly non-catholic (and non-christian) peoples will immediately read this character. They see KING written on the pope's mitre. Even small children can read this character; I mean it's not an obscure one or an obscure reading of a character. And there is an enormous population of the world who will read it that way. I'm not personally interested in whether the character is by design or by accident or slipped in by someone who knows chinese characters, but the fact remains that it is read as King by a large portion of the world's population. And it's obvious to them that it says "king". However, to the vast majority of native English-speakers (or Italian- or German-, right?), it's NOT obvious at all. It's a bit like the newspaper reports that the German people were generally unaware that the British people has a stereotype of them unreasonably "reserving" sun-loungers with towels. The Germans didn't know that this view of them existed. Just like the native English-speakers don't know that this view of the pope's mitre in his coat of arms exists. Anyway. Up to yourself, do what you think is best: I looked and see you have done good work restoring vandalism etc. Good luck T0ky0 10:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic of Chinese characters should stay in the article in some form, as the perception of the "pope as king" is certainly pivotal to the reason why Benedict requested/allowed the removal of the tiara from the COA (although the reasons were never formally stated, as far as I can tell). Therefore, it plays into a main theme of the article. Besides, it is twice as interesting as it is potentially unencyclopediatic. — Eoghanacht talk 13:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That there is no doubt I found it interesting to realize that it can be read as 王 (although I know the character itself since I have been studying Chinese for two years now the association just didn't pop up into my mind). Nevertheless I am still not entirely convinced, if perceptions of the symbolism of the papal coat of arms have a place in the article (we might have to add that the Mohr of Freising might be seen as somewhat racist and the pallium resembles, well.... ;-) Anyway, I am not going to change it. Gugganij 18:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. T0ky0, if you know of any news articles discussing the Chinese character similarites, they would help justify the inclusion. Add them to the "References" section. — Eoghanacht talk 18:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy of using the mitre[edit]

To be honest I think it's ridiulous to state that Whether this breach of tradition is considered gravely intolerable, or simply overzealous artistic license, is a matter of opinion., since some might argue it is in fact tolerable and not overzealous. The pope, as a fact, has the power to alter any tradition which is not a matter of faith. So why can't he establish a new tradition, if he regards the use of the tiara as not being appropriate anymore? Possibly the critics are a bit overzealous. 85.124.176.91 19:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican website states: The Holy Father Benedict XVI decided not to include the tiara in his official personal coat of arms. He replaced it with a simple mitre which is not, therefore, surmounted by a small globe and cross as was the tiara.

According to the old principle Roma locuta, causa finita I would suggest to remove the theory in section Coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI#Controversy that it was an unintended mistake, as long as it is not backed up by some credible sources. 85.124.176.91 19:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point is that he has the power to change heraldic custom, but has not done so. All he need do is publish a formal decree to that effect. Short of a decree, it can only be changed by established practice. However: 1) a single pope cannot set an long term precident by example (if the next few popes kept the design change though, it probably would become established practice); 2) he cannot even start establishing a practice if he allows the blazon to be shown with with the tiara (as in the flower bed) occasionally. Perhaps the theory (you removed) of why the Vatican is backpeddling on the design is technically unencyclopediatic, but the controversy over the design, and at least the acknowledgement of the mystery behind the mixed signals given by the Vatican are essential to the story of the COA. It is what makes a mainly academic topic interesting (maybe even fun) to read, and provides a segway for laymen to get an introduction into the rules of heraldry. — Eoghanacht talk 13:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that it was Marini's idea, not Ratzinger's.... and we wondered.....: 3.7. Papal insignia

Separate mention must be made of the proposal to reform papal insignia. Since Pope Paul VI renounced the tiara, the Bishop of Rome uses a mitre similar to that of other Bishops during liturgical celebrations. This expresses better the bond of communion and unity which exists between the Successor of Saint Peter and the College of Bishops. The pallium, on the contrary, has not changed with the liturgical reform; it has retained the shape adopted in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Office intends to introduce a modification of the pallium which takes into consideration both its earliest forms and its mediaeval symbolism, in order to express more clearly the ecclesiological and christological significance of this insignia, which was of great importance in antiquity. For the ring of the Bishop of Rome, the traditional anulum piscatoris (‘ring of the fisherman’) will probably be reinstated, to be consigned with the pallium to the new Pope on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of his pastoral service. + PIERO MARINI Titular Archbishop of MartiranoMaster of Papal Liturgical Celebrations Anchorite 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for GA Delisting[edit]

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blazon[edit]

Why is there even a mention of a non-official blazon when there is an official version? At least move the unofficial one under the official one! 202.89.155.157 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dare remove, but I have moved the non-official blazon. Lima 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-papal coats of arms[edit]

Should there be any discussion of PapaRatzi's coats of arms while Archbishop of Munich, after coming to the Curia, and after his election as Dean? Gentgeen (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severed head?[edit]

I have to say, when I looked at this coat of arms the first thing that came to mind is "why is there a black guy's severed head on it...?" It doesn't seem to be the most common way that people see it but if you search hard you can find some snippet.([2] from [3]) But then again, most people don't think of Germany fighting the Moors, even though in the 8th-9th century Bavaria was part of the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne, whom the Pope had declared to be the Roman Emperor, and Spain was just a narrow band of Marca Hispanica run by the Franks. So it seems quite possible that the Bavarian diocese could have contributed troops to serve in the Reconquista holy war at the southern border. And in the end, the official description doesn't say "Saint Maurice" or any of the other contenders.... it says a Moor's head, and there you have it. Problem: I'm not a historian and I'm not sure how to run down whether the Bavarian diocese really did send troops to fight in the marches, and how close this would have come in time to the first use of the head in the 1300s. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one would think a Good Article would address those issues that first come to the layman's mind immediately and in a logical order, but instead everything above the crack is devoted to extended wanking about the tradition and practice of heraldry. Sorry, but only the fanbois care about that. Of course this has its hilarious side as renfaire fanbois dogmatically insist that Ratzi is breaking all their precious rules, as if he isn't the Pope, in charge of his own sovereign state, and can declare any coat of arms he damn well pleases. IMO, the discussion of the meaning of the symbols from the RCC perspective should be at the top of the page and the competing renderings of the coat of arms in Elvish relegated to Notes or a box at the bottom. YMMV. 98.180.8.57 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiara back again?[edit]

Apparently the Pope replaced the mitre with the tiara at the tapestry hanging from his window.

See this youtube link. Gugganij (talk)

Is there any evidence that it was the Pope who replaced the mitre with the tiara, that he personally approved the design of the embroidery? (The non-detailed pictures I have found of what was previously used give the impression that there was no embroidery, and only something merely printed attached to the hanging tapestry.) Or did some member of his staff simply accept a gift from the firm that made it? - a firm that specializes in liturgical vestments complete with maniple and that has a significantly named website: http://www.tridentinum.com/. The Holy See's own website has made no change (as yet?): see this page. Esoglou (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the replacement of the mitre by a tiara was not noticed by Pope Benedict until the media made a fuss about it. The new tapestry is no longer used and the old one with the arms of Pope John Paul II covered with a white cloth bearing those of Benedict is back in use. A website that comments on this return also says that vestments (made by the same firm?) that have the present pope's arms topped with a tiara are having the offending tiara removed. See here. Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal's arms[edit]

Is there a difference between the coat of arms Ratzinger used as an archbishop of Munich and those that he adopted in Rome? --141.48.222.122 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&oldid=1206729274"