Talk:Coat of arms of the Holy See/Archive 1

Comments
Coat of arms pic in article has changed. Is it correct? Name suggests it's a vatican coa rather than the arms of the holy see. --Oscar The Cat talk 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just reverted it to the red shield version, since it's the official blazon according to here. Pmadrid 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested undo of move
Coat of arms of the Holy See → Coat of arms of Vatican City – The illustrated coat of arms has been officially declared to be the coat-of-arms (in Italian, stemma) of Vatican City State. Sources deny that it is the Holy See's coat-of-arms.

What was presented as grounds for moving this article from "Coat of arms of the State of Vatican City" to "Coat of arms of the Holy See" was the heading "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City" in an English-language news service that does not state that the two are identical. The Italian text of the same news service, which is presumably the original, speaks of the "coat of arms" (stemma) of Vatican City, but with regard to the Holy See speaks instead of its emblema (emblem). Both the English translation and the original Italian give two distinct illustrations, of which it can be reasonably presumed that the first concerns the Holy See and the second the Vatican City State. The first is displayed merely as an emblem, not on a shield as a coat of arms. While the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State of 2001 (which on this point repeated that of 1929) is a reliable source of the highest order for the statement that the coat of arms illustrated on that site and described in this Wikipedia article is the official coat of arms of the state, the source adduced gives no valid grounds for claiming that this coat of arms is also that of the Holy See - even less that Wikipedia should present it as principally the coat of arms of the Holy See.

Another website explicitly distinguishes between the two: "L’emblema della Santa Sede Apostolica e quello dello Stato della città del Vaticano non coincidono, essendo il primo il simbolo dell’ufficio del Romano Pontefice, capo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana, mentre il secondo è il simbolo proprio dell’entità politica e amministrativa. Anche se gli elementi caratteristici di entrambi sono le chiavi e la tiara papale (l’emblema della Santa Sede però non è inserito in uno scudo)." In English, "The emblem of the Holy Apostolic See and that of the Vatican City State are not identical, since the former is the symbol of the office of the Bishop of Rome, Head of the Roman Catholic Church, while the latter is the symbol proper to the political and administrative entity. Although the elements that characterize both are the keys and the papal tiara (the emblem of the Holy See is, however, not placed within a shield)."

Another study is more concise: "Hat der Heilige (Apostolische) Stuhl ein Wappen? Nein, aber ein Emblem" (Has the Holy (Apostolic) See a coat of arms? No, but it has an emblem). And it gives as source for its statement the German version of the very source that the mover of the Wikipedia article gave as grounds for making the move! It also criticizes as "heraldisch falsch" (heraldically wrong) the use of the emblem of the Holy See (without shield) on the button of the uniform of the Vatican City gendarmes: "Hier müsste das Staatswappen stehen" (Here there should be the coat of arms of the state).

That the coat of arms illustrated is that of Vatican City is clear. That it is the coat of arms of the Holy See as claimed in the renamed article is, to say the least, disputed. The move was wrong. Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The English article is titled "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", the title itself states they are one and the same by the use of and, especially since the article goes on to show but one coat of arms and one blazon, not two distinct and separate descriptions. The Italian article's title is different, yes, but the Italian article the goes on to describe only one coat of arms. The other articles you listed do differ from the Vatican's article, but those articles are not official. We should defer to the official article by the official source. Bellae artes (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is only your personal interpretation of what the English article means. The Italian article, as you rightly say, gives only one coat of arms (as does the English article) and speaks only of a coat of arms of Vatican City, not of the Holy See, while also giving an emblem (as, for some reason that you fail to explain, does the English article) and speaking only of an emblem of the Holy See, not of Vatican City State.  The Italian article is, I would think, more not less official, than the English translation.  More official still is article 20 of the Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State, which describes the coat of arms illustrated in the other sources as the coat of arms of the state (surely an official indication of the proper title for the Wikipedia article) with no suggestion that it is also the coat of arms of any other entity.  The other cited sources that you wish to ignore are not primary official sources, but they are, in Wikipedia terms, reliable secondary sources; and they explicitly state (no question of personal interpretation here) that the Holy See has no coat of arms but has an emblem.  Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not interpreting the article, I merely quoted the title. The title disagrees with your assessment without needing any further interpretation. But if the title is not enough, there is further proof that both entities share the same arms--there is only one coat of arms being discussed in the article.
 * And the English article is official, because it is an official press release from the Vatican's Press Office. No where does the Vatican state one language is "more official" than another, so no, the Italian article is not better or more accurate in any way. Even so, the Italian article only discusses one coat of arms as well.
 * Secondary sources are fine, yes, but if a primary official source contradicts it then that makes those secondary sources unreliable.
 * Oh, and that Fundamental Law that describes the State of Vatican City’s arms wouldn’t mention the Holy See because because the Laws of the political entity have no bearing of the religious entity, so it is not surprising that there is no assigning of the See’s arms in the State’s laws. In any instance, the Fundamental Laws do not provide any facts to back up your argument, nr any information pertinent to this discussion, so it is only a distraction to even bring it up. Bellae artes (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just commenting my experience in Flag of Vatican City. The Vatican is old fashioned and it works in Italian, not in English. The Italian version is always the original version, the others are just translations. The translations are sometimes incomplete, and the meaning of some sentences may be slightly changed from the original. In case of disagreement, the Italian version is always the correct one.


 * And a comment on sources. A press release is edited by the persons in charge of PR, it is very focused in immediate events, it may quote incorrectly other sources, or it may quote only the parts that support the press release. In my book there always low-quality sources. And they can't be edited after release to fix errors. When a press release disagrees with an article on the official website, the article should be given preference. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Enric Naval. Another indication of the non-authoritative character of such press releases is the statement in the English release that "the shield is surmounted by the tiara" - like the mitre above the escutcheon of the personal arms of Pope Benedict XVI or the tiara above those of his predecessors.  This is quite evidently mistaken.  The Italian text rightly says that the keys are surmounted by the tiara.
 * To the comment by Bellae artes that the Italian press release "only discusses one coat of arms", should be added: "which it identifies as that of the Vatican City State and does not attribute to the Holy See".
 * The coat of arms illustrated is certainly that of Vatican City State. Not even one reliable source claims it is also that of the Holy See.  The Wikipedias in all the other languages call the illustrated coat of arms that of Vatican City, not of the Holy See.  We are surely not going to say that they are all out of step except our English Wikipedia.  Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The language of the Vatican is not Italian, it is Latin. If we are going on the non-authoritaveness of press releases as an argument to exclude the official English press release, why are you, Esoglou, quoting an the Italian press release as a source? Even if official press releases have minor errors in them (both the English and Italian versions do), they are still official and hold more weight than un-official website. So again, it is improper to somehow attribute the Italian press release as the supreme authority and use it to dismiss the English because that argument could easily be turned around to dismiss the Italian release.


 * Esoglou, I do not understand your issue with this, so let me try to break this down for you. The Italian press release is titled "Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano", please not the use of the word "e", but goes on to describe only one emblem. So that makes that one device the emblem of the Holy See and the Vatican State. To back this up, the English version is titled "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", please not the use of the word "and", but also goes on to describe one coat of arms. This, again, means that both the Holy See and Vatican State are represented by the one coat of arms described in the article. The press releases in every language go on to describe one device, and each time label it the device of the Holy See and Vatican State; they are one and the same.


 * Also, what another Wikipedia does has no bearing here. Most other Wikipedias mirrored the English version, copying the titles and crudely translating the articles to help expand the article counts on other Wikipedias. So copying the title of this article over to other languages is hardly a reason to leave it as is. Also, Wikipedia can't be cited as a source on Wikipedia. Do you not know how Wikipedia creates the content of its articles? So you should understand that simply because you see it on Wikipedia doesn't make it true, and for that reason a person can't cite what he wrote in one artilce as evidence for what he writes in another article on Wikipedia.


 * Find a source from the Vatican that contradicts the Vatican's press release. Until then, the official stance from the Vatican is that the coat of arms of the Vatican State and the emblem used by the Holy See are one and the same device. Bellae artes (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange that you still give more trust to your personal interpretation of a press release so inaccurate that it cannot even rightly describe the escutcheon, than you give to an accurate document of the Press Office of the Holy See, which speaks of two distinct things, for each of which it provides an illustration: the "emblem of the Holy See" (which it nowhere describes as an emblem of Vatican City State) and (you rightly stress that "and") the "coat of arms of Vatican City State" (which it nowhere describes as a coat of arms of the Holy See)! Two distinct things, the emblem of the Holy See and the coat of arms of Vatican City State, as stated also by other reliable sources.  The accurate press release, as you remark, "goes on to describe only one emblem" (which it calls the emblem of the Holy See), and it also goes on to describe only one coat of arms (which it calls the coat of arms of Vatican City State).  Are you for some reason imagining that the heading is "Emblema e stemma sia della Santa Sede che dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" (Emblem and coat of arms both of the Holy See and of Vatican City State"?   That is not the heading.  It's "1) Emblema della Santa Sede; e (note this word e)  2) Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano".  Wikipedia must follow what is explicitly stated in a number of reliable sources, not what one demonstrably unreliable source is taken to mean.  Esoglou (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. Now that the article has been moved again and again rewritten (in contradiction to the personal interpretation of Bellae artes and on the basis of an equally personal interpretation of the same evidence) it is too late to act on my request. Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputed
The present version of the article is based on an interpretation by Bellae artes of a page of a website, seen as declaring that that the coat of arms of Vatican City State as also the coat of arms of the Holy See, and a supposition by Bellae artes that the coat of arms in question existed before the foundation of Vatican City State and was that of the Holy See. Other sources disagree. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (I put two pictures in the article. The keys are reversed in the coats, so we need two different images, or one image where both coats appear). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I could only find this "When what is represented is the Holy See, not Vatican City State, the keys are reversed. Rather, when the state was set up in 1929, the keys in the arms of the Holy See, with the gold one in dexter position, were reversed to provide a distinctive symbol for the new entity." --Enric Naval (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a long book here, but it's in Italian. Can someone check it? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the www.crwflags site, being a wiki, does not count here as a reliable source. The book you mentioned begins on page 319 to speak of the Holy See, but in terms of papal flags (the coat of arms of the United Kingdom is very different from its flag) and in terms of the use of the "insignia" of Rome (the papal city). On page 324 it begins to speak of the Church of Rome, but again with regard to its "insignia".  Then on page 329 it begins to speak of the "coats of arms" (stemmi) of the Popes.  In short it gives information on the evolution of the insignia (if you wish, the "emblem") of the Holy See and the use of these insignia on the coats of arms of various entities, but it nowhere illustrates a coat of arms of the Holy See.  Esoglou (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Most books I have on heraldry seem to gloss over the matter; they may refer to the Vatican State but then do not mention the Holy See, or vice versa. I believe this arises from the complex issue of what exactly is the Vatican State in relation to the Holy See, and how separate they really are. The idea of reversed colours for oneand another propably come from the papal arms which have the keys reversed from the State's arms. It was likely assumed one pattern for the holy, one for the secular. This is what was written on Wikipedia without sources, and this is what seems to have spread across the Internet, now coming back to Wikipedia full circle.

When going to the websites, the Holy See seems to prefer to use the keys and tiara without a shield and the Vatican State seems to prefer to use the keys and tiara with a shield. This is a more recent trend, for the Holy See exised in a heraldically rich environment centuries before the Vatican State was created. It is worth mentioning, but in the sense that the trend has been recent and the arms pre-date the State. Bellae artes (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean, the website of the Holy See uses only its insignia (the emblem) of tiara and crossed keys, and the Vatican State uses only the coat of arms of the tiara and crossed keys on a red field. The essential point is that the coat of arms was created for the Vatican City State by the law of 7 June 1929 and that, although the Holy See existed "in a heraldically rich environment" for centuries, there is not a scrap of evidence of the existence of that coat of arms before 1929.  Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 337 at this source, in the third row far right we have the "scudo della Santa Sede nel XV secolo", or "shield of the Holy See in the 15th century", which shows a pair of crossed keeys and papal tiara. Bellae artes (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo. The book you refer to is that already indicated by Enric Naval.  The author seems to have interpreted that design as a 15th-century coat of arms of the Holy See.  There is no indication of the colour of the field.  So we have a source that says the Holy See had a coat of arms in the 1400s.  I have failed to find in the book any indication that the author holds that the Holy See has a coat of arms at present.  Perhaps you will prove me wrong.  So now we have one source that says the Holy See had a coat of arms half a millennium ago.  We have another source, a clearly inaccurate page, that speaks of "coat of arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", which you interpret as saying that the two entities share the same coat of arms, and which you extend to mean that the one coat of arms illustrated is principally that of the Holy See and only secondarily that of Vatican City State.  On the other hand, we have a page without obvious inaccuracies also issued by the Press Office of the Holy See which speaks of a coat of arms of Vatican City State and in the same context attributes to the Holy See only an emblem.  We have also two secondary sources that explicitly, without any need of interpretation, say that the Holy See has no coat of arms (now), only an emblem, something that seems to be borne out by the website of the Holy See, which presents only what the Press Office calls the emblem of the Holy See and does not call an emblem of Vatican City State, while the website of Vatican City State presents what the Press Office calls, both in Italian and in English, the coat of arms of Vatican City State and, at least in a certain interpretation of its English version, the coat of arms also of the Holy See.  It seems to me that the weight of evidence favours the view that the Holy See has no coat of arms now, especially in consideration of the Wikipedia rule that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources".  Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

From a Catholic source, Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopaedia: "The coat-of-arms of the Holy See is a red shield ensigned with the papal tiara over crossed gold and silver keys."

From a heraldry source, A treatise on ecclesiastical heraldry: "A carved stone shield dated 1337 in the Palazzo dei Consoli at Gubbio is particularly interesting, as it retains traces of its colouring, the keys being white and the field red. From this time on cases of shields with the crossed keys, generally tied, are fairly frequent."

"Froissar, in his Chronicles referring to the events of the year 1383, is the first to blazon the arms of the Church, faisait Vevesque de Mordwich porter devant lui les armes de I'Eglise, la banniere de St. Pierre, de gueules a deux clefs d'argent en sautoir, comme Gonfanonnier du Pape Urbain."

"The colours of this coat have varied a good deal. The field is almost always red, occasionally blue. At first the keys are white, then comes a time when gold keys are found, and finally the present usage of placing a gold key in bend across a silver one in bend sinister slowly makes its way. A banner of the Church de panno rubeo cum clavibus Ecclesiae Romanae is referred to at Benevento in 1331; in 1337 we have the painted stone shield at Gubbio already mentioned, and red banners and hangings with white or silver crossed keys, sometimes tied gold, appear in the crusading scene in the miniatures of the Statutes of the Neapolitan Order of the Holy Ghost (1352)."

"A red shield bearing two white crossed keys, and surmounted by the tiara, is to be seen in a window of the cathedral of Bourges accompanying the achievements of the anti-popes Clement VII and Benedict XIII, and other examples of these tinctures are to be found in manuscripts dating from the time of the former of these anti-popes and from that of Nicholas V, in a series of shields painted on the ceiling formerly in the church of San Simone at Spoleto (ca. 1400), in the 15th-century glass in the cathedrals of York and of Carpentras, in various 15th-century books of arms both English, German, and Italian, as well as in Martin Schrot's book of arms which is as late as 1581."

"The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister, although the relative positions are sometimes reversed."

"In the later Urbino manuscripts in the Vatican Library, such as Dante (about 1600), and the life of Francesco-Maria della Rovere (after 1605), the keys are regularly gold and silver. From this time on, at any rate where the keys appear in a shield, these tinctures seem to be thoroughly established. Variations from the use of the red field for the papal arms are rare."

Therefore, I tend to agree with Bellae artes. Embattled Grady (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sound quite convincing. I refer not to the Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, which may not be a reliable source on this matter, but to the heraldry book, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry by Donald Lindsay Galbreath (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930).  It supports what Enric Naval said about the position of the keys.  Speaking of the definitive form of the arms of the Holy See (yes, it does speak of the Holy See as having a coat of arms), it states: "The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister", the opposite of the positions of the keys in the coat of arms of Vatican City State and in full conformity with the disposition of the two keys in the heraldic achievement (outside the escutcheon) of the personal arms of the Popes and in the sede vacante arms, which, now I come to think of it, are the arms of the Holy See during those periods, lacking the tiara to indicate that there is no pope.  I think Embattled Grady can be said to agree with Enric Naval rather than with Bellae artes.  The Italian press release of the Holy See Press Office describes only one coat of arms, that of Vatican City State, and its silence about any coat of arms of the Holy See is no proof that the Holy See has no coat of arms.  While the English press release has a heading that could lead the reader to conclude, like Bellae artes, that the coat of arms of Vatican City State and that of the Holy See are identical, it gives a blazon that, if it does not mention the disposition of the keys, applies to both coats of arms posited by Enric Naval, distinct ones for the Holy See and for Vatican City State.  It cannot be cited therefore as proof that the Holy See's coat of arms is identical with that of Vatican City State in contradiction to what is clearly stated in the technical book by Donald Lindsay Galbreath.
 * Perhaps Embattled Grady would be good enough to comment on the correspondence (or lack of correspondence) between the English release's blazon and the illustration it gives. I would have thought that "two keys in saltire or and argent" would mean that the gold key, the first mentioned, was in bend and the silver key, the second mentioned, in bend sinister, as in the coat of arms of the Holy See as posited by Enric Naval, and not as in the coat of arms illustrated, which is undoubtedly that of the Vatican City State.  Also, "interlaced in the rings or" seems to me to indicate an interlacing in gold, not, as in the illustration, in red.  Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your quoted material deals with the keys of the popes and the papacy, which are known to be reversed in colours from the keys of the Holy See. Understanably, this is confusing you. The office of the pope had a coat of arms of its own, usually on a red field (some, not a majority though, of early German sources say blue field) are a tiara above two keys crossed in saltire with gold key in bend and silver in bend sinister. The papal arms, for this reason, use the keys in saltire with the gold one in bend. The idea of the papacy having or needing a separate coat of arms has fallen to the wayside centuries ago, the arms of the popes and the tiara and key emblem serves that purpose enough, but the custom of the gold key in saltire has remained. The Holy See has arms also red (with some early German sources saying blue) with a tiara above two crossed keys but the gold in bend sinister and the silver in bend; this way technically different. On top of that, as can be seen in the Catholic Church coat of arms section I wrote, the Church's arms were sometimes recorded as being two crossed keys on a red field without the tiara. Still further, the Basilica of Saint Peter has a coat of arms which display two keys, though they did not evolve like the papal keys and were rarely seen crossed in saltire.


 * The sede vacante emblem is used by the Camerlingo as a symbol of his office, who, by virtue of that office, acts as the head of the Church when there is no reigning pope. The emblem is displayed behind the coat of arms of the Camerlingo, as can be seen here; when it is used by itself, it merely indicates the office of the Camerlingo and not the Church, papacy or Holy See. Bellae artes (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder what Embattled Grady thinks of your way of getting out of the conclusion that Embattled Grady and I drew from Galbreath's book, namely, that the arms of the Holy See are gules two keys in saltire or (normally in bend) and argent (normally in bend sinister) surmounted by a papal tiara or triple crowned argent, the view also of Enric Naval. Your way of getting out of it is to posit a "papal coat of arms" distinct from the Holy See's coat of arms, the "papal coat of arms" being as described by Galbreath and the coat of arms of the Holy See being - according to your argument, which is based solely on a heading in the English version of a press release, which disagrees with the Italian version (the original, as Enric Naval confirms) and on no other evidence whatever - is identical with the coat of arms of Vatican City State.  I think that, unlike you, most people would see "papal coat of arms" and "Holy See's coat of arms" as synonymous, and would ask what is the Holy See without the papacy.  I notice too the lack of citations in support of the affirmations in your claim about a distinction between papal arms and the Holy See's arms.  Esoglou (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * -> Esoglou: You seem to be mistaken about the www.crwflags site; it is no wiki. It is a summary of mailing list discussions, each page edited for clarity by a single editor. --Palnatoke (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To summerize, as an outside editor, it appears as though Esoglou is right. There are a lot of sources to suggest that there is a Vatican CoA and there are obviously Papal CsoA but I see no evidence (absence Original Research and Synthesis) to suggest that the Holy See has a coat of arms, nonetheless that they are the ones described at this page. Achowat (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You agree with Esglou on the part where he said there was no coat of arms for the Holy See, or the part where he said there was a coat of arms for the Holy See? Or the part where he thinks the papal keys and the coat of arms of the Holy See should be the same despite the Vatican disagreeing? I would think the Vatican would know more about itself than Esglou. Bellae artes (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussion continues, in spite of the insistent removal of the tag on the article page pointing to existence of a dispute.
 * Although at first I accepted what two independent secondary sources said about absence of a coat of arms of the Holy See, I have become convinced that the Holy See does have one. I do not accept the view that the coat of arms of the Holy See is certainly identical with that of Vatican City State, as Bellae artes claims on the basis of Bellae artes's interpretation of an English version of a press release that diverges considerably from the Italian version of the same press release.  If, as Palnatoke seems to say, the www.crwflags site is a reliable source, there is even evidence that, on the contrary, the two coats of arms are in fact distinct because of a different arrangement of the keys, as the Galbreath book indicates is at least the normal arrangement for the papal arms.  Esoglou (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't a reliable source because it is nothing more than conversations like this one that have been edited and posted by the webmaster, but it can be used to narrow infomration and sometimes points you on to an actual source. Bellae artes (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Esoglou, I'm not convinced the difference in the position of the keys is significant. As Galbreath wrote, "The final development in the tinctures of the papal keys shows a gold key lying in bend over a silver key in bend sinister, although the relative positions are sometimes reversed.". Also, the French and Spanish pages on the Vatican website agree with the English page ("Armoiries du Saint-Siège et de l’État de la Cité du Vatican", "Escudo de la Santa Sede y del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano" - I can't find the German or Portugese pages). I don't know if it is correct to imply an order from that English blazon ("two keys in saltire or and argent"), I would expect it to be explicit to avoid any misunderstanding if the positions are significant.
 * Interestingly this is what the Heraldry Society (Coat of Arms, 1966) wrote in a response to an enquiry: "Papal Arms. With reference to the arms of the Holy See, one authority gives the blazon as follows: Gules a key or in bend above a key argent in bend sinister, both wards upwards, the bows united by a cord or, above the shield a tiara, its three crowns or, the mitre argent." My thinking is if the difference is significant then one would expect to find a contrary blazon for the Vatican City like Gules a key argent in bend above a key or in bend sinister or two keys in saltire argent and or etc. but to date I have nothing. Embattled Grady (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your appreciated contribution. The coat of arms of Vatican City has an official illustration (given in the Fundamental Law, both the 1929 and the 2001 versions) but no official blazon.  The official illustration of the Vatican City State's arms has the key argent in bend and the key or in bend sinister.  There is thus no ambiguity about the state's coat of arms.  Galbreath, I think, suggests that for the Holy See the normal arrangement is to have the gold key in bend, although the other arrangement is sometimes found.  Galbreath thus indicates that the Holy See's arrangement is distinct from that in the coat of arms of Vatican City State at least because the arrangement in the state's arms is not obligatory and is indeed unusual in the Holy See's arms.   The authority that the Heraldry Society quoted is quite clear and definite on the question, stating that the arms of the Holy See (which it treats as synonymous with "papal arms" and not as Bellae artes would have it, the arms of a different entity) have the gold key in bend.  It thus declares that the coat of arms of the Holy See is not the same as that of Vatican City State.  This supports Enric Naval's statement.  Even if we were to say that it has not been proved that the two coats of arms are different, the existence of so many sources that say so means that the insistent claim by Bellae artes, based on nothing more than an understanding of the English version of a Press Office release with which the Italian version disagrees, that the two entities have an identical coat of arms cannot be presented in Wikipedia as fact.  Esoglou (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Original research is not allowed. Your statements are not in line with what any editor said to you, and you are making great leaps and twists trying to find a way to make the arms different. The arms of the popes are clearly different from teh arms of Vatican City/Holy See, see Papal coats of arms. EEnric Naval asked if a the flag site was an acceptable source, otherwise his contribution was to give a source that stated the arms of the Holy See are red with a gold and silver key and tiara upon them. Embattled Grady told you that any difference was not significant, because the sources tended to describe the same arms, with occasional varience. Bellae artes (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The work of Bellae artes based on his interpretation of a single text has now been replaced by another editor's work based on that other editor's interpretation of the same single text. I therefore consider this discussion closed.  There is no need to remove the "Disputed" tag that pointed to this discussion, since Bellae artes has already insistently removed it.  Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision by Fry1989
This last edit to the article is nonsensical. Firstly, the Escutcheon begins "Gules" for the Arms of the Holy See. Next, a coat of arms must have a shield ("The shield is the only essential element in a coat of arms", A new dictionary of heraldry, Stephen Friar). Finally, we also have ample sources which state that there is a Holy See coat of arms and that it's field is red. The first image is really an Heraldic badge, the second is the coat of arms. Embattled Grady (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same source, an English press release considered in isolation from the Italian text of the same press release, is interpreted by Bellae artes as meaning that the Holy See has a coat of arms with a red field and two crossed keys, the silver one being in bend, and by Fry1989 as meaning that the Holy See has what Fry1989 calls a coat of arms with no shield of any colour. Fry1989's deeply felt defence of his interpretation can be seen in this page of Commons.  Both parties qualify the same source as an official statement of what exactly is the coat of arms of the Holy See.  Esoglou (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link I'll get round to reading it later. I don't think there is such a thing as a shieldless coat of arms. Friar certainly says that. I did find another blazon for the Holy See with the gold key in bend sinister: "Arms of the Holy See: Gules, two keys ward upward tied with a riband or one in bend argent debruied by another in bend sinister gold; the shield ensigned by a tiara argent encircled by three coronets or.", Almanach de Gotha: annual genealogical reference, Volume 1, John Kennedy, John E. James.
 * Also, you mentioned above the official illustration given in the Fundamental Law. Have you seen Attachment B, I mean is it available on-line. I am unable to find it. Embattled Grady (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your Almanach de Gotha reference is very interesting, describing the arms as identical with the arms of Vatican City. I did look for a reproduction of either the 1929 or the 2000/2001 Legge fondamentale dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, which appears on several pages of the Internet, but unfortunately never, as far as my research went, with reproductions of the three appendices (allegati) mentioned in the final article, the difficulty, no doubt, being the need to reproduce them in colour.  Of course, we have very good grounds for presuming that the coat of arms given in colour on the Holy See Press Office release that cites that allegato B is in fact the same as "lo stemma (dello Stato della Città del Vaticano) ... costituito dalla tiara con le chiavi, secondo il modello che forma l’allegato B della presente Legge".  A blazon (blasonatura) of the arms, which would not require reproduction in colour, would of course have been helpful to us. I see that Fry1989 has below claims that "our source" declares that the coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City State are not identical, while Bellae artes claimed that the same "our source" declares that the coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City State are identical.  Who is right?  Is either right?   A pity that the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State did not add some statement about the coat of arms of the Holy See or attribute some flag to the Holy See!  Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can call it whatever you want but we've been having this discussion on Commons for days, and the Vatican Press Office clearly shows and states in both it's English and it's Italian versions that there are two images, with the following differences: The Hole See uses the keys symbol by itself, with the ropes tied together, while the Vatican uses the keys symbol with a red shield and the ropes freely hanging through the handles of the keys. They are two separate entities, and they use the symbol differently, therefore my edit is perfectly correct AND sourced. Esoglou, you can whine all you want whether this is properly a coat of arms or a emblem, but none of that matters. First off, the VPO calls it that so your complaint means nothing, second, who cares what it is? Whether it's a coat of arms, or an emblem doesn't matter, what DOES matter is that the Holy See and the Vatican do not use the same thing, there are clearly differences, and that is why there are two different files. That's all that matters here, not stupid useless purist complaining that "that's not a coat of arms!!!".  Fry1989  eh?   19:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case there is no escutcheon as the one given is clearly for the Vatican viz. "Gules, ..." Embattled Grady (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why I removed the "Gules" part of the description of the escutcheon, and I have now moved the description to "other elements" as that's more correct. I know that it is an annoyance for heraldic specialists like yourselves when lay people call a seal a coat of arms, of when they call of coat of arms a seal, or when they call an emblem a coat of arms, or however else people might screw up the terms, and to be frank it annoys me too, but there are bigger issues at hand than just "what is the correct term; is it an emblem or a coat of arms?". The real issue is that the Holy See and the Vatican have two different versions of the keys symbol, that's why really matters. When Bellae artes originally altered this page, he made it look like the symbol of the Holy See and the Vatican are identical, one and the same. But our source actually says that's not true. That's what I have worked to correct here.  Fry1989  eh?   20:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have gone far out of my way to work with and fix things to please you two nitpickers, I won't any longer. I've asked for this page to be protected.  Fry1989  eh? 20:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Settled dispute
This dispute is over the coat of arms of the Holy See.

The primary source from the Vatican website is here: English: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_en.html "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City"

Italian: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_it.html "Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano"

Fry1989 interprets "and of" in the paragraph heading and because there are two images that the first image is the coat of arms of the Holy See while the second is that of the Vatican City.

Esoglou, Bellae rates and myself disagree with this interpretation for the following reasons:

i) The "of" is missing in the contents link at the top of the page, it reads "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City"

ii) The English is poor which indicates a translation; it should really read Coat of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City state

iii) The Italian page paragraph heading Emblema della Santa Sede e Stemma dello Stato della Città del Vaticano describes the Holy See image as an Emblem and the Vatican City image as a coat of arms (Stemma)

iv) The Italian page has a heading "SANTA SEDE Emblema" to describe the Holy See image

v) Since there is a difference is how we interpret the primary souce information and because of the differences between the English and Italian versions we have looked at reliable secondary sources. The all confirm that the Holy See coat of arms has a red field thus demonstrating Fry1989 interpretation to be incorrect. One The Papacy: Gaius-Proxies edited by Philippe Levillain states they are both the same: '''this form is currently the coat of arms of the Holy See and of Vatican City"

vi) Fry1989 has been unable to provide any secondary reference to backup his interpretation of a shieldless coat of arms for the Holy See. If something it true as Fry1989 then it should be easily citable with secondary references.

Embattled Grady (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources mean nothing in the face of an official source, which there are 2 of. The VPO shows very clearly that there are two symbols, and they differ in how they are used by the two entities. The two entities' websites confirm this. It's beyond clear and verifiable. This is childish nonsense. If both the Holy See and the Vatican are to be here, there is only one title the page can have. There is no way to name the article "Emblem of the Holy See and Coat of arms of the Vatican City", it's a rediculously long title for such a nitpicky issue. The only way to correct it is A:, break them up into two articles, or B: name the article "Symbols of the Holy See and Vatican City", and put the right title in each infobox; "Emblem of the Holy See" and "Coat of arms of Vatican City". Pick which ever, but there is no easy way around it. Fry1989  eh?   22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is a difference between the English and Italian versions. The Italian version (the language of the Vatican) clearly draws a distinction between Emblema and Stemma. In this case we check secondary sources to try and resolve this difference. They confirm our interpretation of the article. Simple as that. The very fact that you can produce nothing to confirm your interpretation must surely tell you something. Embattled Grady (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I JUST SAID THAT! Pay attention. If one is a coat of arms (stemma), and one is a emblem (emblema), and the two of you are so stubborn about the difference in title, there are ONLY two options: 1: make two articles, one for the Holy See, and one for the Vatican, each article can have the appropriate page title. 2: Name this page "Symbols of the Holy See and Vatican City" (the only neutral title there is), and in the two infoboxes put "Emblem of the Holy See" and "Coat of arms of Vatican City". We can't name this article "Emblem of the Holy See and Coat of arms of Vatican City", it's too long and verbose, it's not an option. I prefer #2 simply before there's not enough information to warrant two separate articles, but I'm saying you guys can pick one of the two options and it can be done. Read them over and decide.  Fry1989  eh?   23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your 22:50 edit. I didn't see the bit you had inserted. We have reliable secondary sources that confirm a Holy See coat of arms. The mere fact that the italian page doesn't mention one does not confirm there isn't one. Embattled Grady (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether there is a Holy See "coat of arms" or not doesn't matter, if we don't have it here it's not even relevant to this discussion. The only ting relevant is the two files currently on the article. If one's an "emblem" and one's a "coat of arms", and you are so stuck up on the difference like it's a life and death matter, then there are only two ways to correct it, and those two ways are layed out above by myself. Pick one.  Fry1989  eh?   23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does because the secondary sources say there is a Holy See CoA and that it is the same as the Vatican CoA. Embattled Grady (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But if we don't have it here, there's no point in talking about it until we do. Right now, all we have is File A and File B. You're insistent that A's an emblem and B's a coat of arms. So what do you want to do? Give them each their own article, or give this article a neutral name?  Fry1989  eh?   23:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's identical. All you need to do is copy File B and create File C. A is the HS emblem, B the Vatican CoA, C is the HS CoA. May be we should wait for Esoglou opinion Embattled Grady (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Holy See's "arms" is the same as the Vatican's, I'd have to disagree on just one point. The Holy See seems to use the ropes tied together, the Vatican seems to use the ropes flowing freely, it's a minor difference, but a difference no less.  Fry1989  eh?   23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In view of the contrasting claims of Fry and Bellae about the conclusion to draw from the same source, I have raised on the appropriate noticeboard the question whether it is a reliable source for either interpretation. Esoglou (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV version
After the series of revisions that have on perhaps insufficient evidence presented as the only correct view on the coat of arms of the Holy See a succession of different views, I have made a revision that reports on the variety of views that do exist. Surely that is a better arrangement. Esoglou (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks a better arrangement. As the article contains the emblem and thinking of Fry1989's objection may be title should be something more like: Armorial Insignia of the Holy See and of the Vatican City. What do you think? Embattled Grady (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your expression of approval. I prefer "coat of arms" to the obscure "armorial insignia", not only for reasons of clarity but also because it could equally be questioned whether the emblem in question is armorial, and because, with regard to "coat of arms", the text says clearly that there are those who hold the Holy See has none, while others argue (as Fry did) that the emblem can, though loosely, be called a coat of arms.  This last is one of the statements that I cannot properly source.  Is there anyone outside of Wikipedia editors who says that about the emblem or who says what certain editors have said about the meaning of the English documentation of the Press Office?  Finding outside sources for these points would be a great improvement.  (I suppose, on the other hand, that the view of the two outside sources I cited for "no coat of arms but only an emblem" can be seen as giving an interpretation of the meaning of the Italian documentation of the Press Office.)  Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is surely obvious that the 18 August 2012 version by Bellae artes that presented a particular coat of arms as the "Coat of arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City" and that started off by saying "The coat (singular) of arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City ..." is not an NPOV version. As it again stands, the article does gives more than one view on the alleged identity, including specialized heraldic sources that state the contrary to what Bellae artes wrote.  Experts on papal heraldry such as Galbreath and Heim agree that the coat of arms of the Holy See has the gold key in bend (unlike the arrangement in the coat of arms of Vatican City).  However, in view of the strongly felt beliefs of certain Wikipedia editors in their own contradictory personal interpretations of the documentation issued by the Holy See Press Office, their differing interpretations are also included in the article.  At least for now. Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2012

Missing "History" or "Origins" section
While the article goes into a good deal of detail on distinguishing the exact use on variants...it does almost nothing to detail the exact history of the emblem and arms before 1929. I believe the coat of arms was being used before this date and the article is misinterpreting the 1929 date. That is when the emblem or arms were adapted to the state flag. . The article could use a bit more book references.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is difficult to find sources other than Galbreath that speak of the tinctures and relative positioning of the keys, which is the point of disagreement between the first two of the three views indicated in the article. The source you indicated is very interesting.  Unfortunately, it speaks more of the use of the keys (and the tiara) as external ornaments of the coats of arms of various popes rather than of them as charges on the escutcheon of the Holy See.  Perhaps the article Keys of Heaven, which badly needs development, is the place for "detailing the exact history of the emblem".  I certainly share your belief that the Holy See was using a coat of arms before 1929 and I think that this is a severe difficulty against the view that the Holy See has no coat of arms now (the third view mentioned in the article, a view strongly advocated by editors Flanker and Fry1989).  The emblem was "adapted" to the flag of Vatican City State in the same year as the state was founded.  Was the coat of arms that the state adopted in 1929 identical with a pre-existing coat of arms of the Holy See?  Or was it a deliberately distinguishing variant of it?  Or did the pre-existing coat of arms of the Holy See, in spite of what Galbreath seems to say, simply allow artistic choice in the positioning of the keys?  Even in this case there would be a difference between the arms of the Holy See (positioning unspecified) and the coat of arms of Vatican City State, which in its Fundamental Law represented key argent in bend, key or in bend sinister.
 * The book to which you gave a link devotes the mere 11 lines of section a) to the keys and tiara as part of the coat of arms of the Holy See. Perhaps also section b): the first part of it is on the use of the keys and tiara on the chief of the personal arms of some popes (and the chief, taken in isolation, would be the arms of the Holy See), while the second part, which speaks of abandonment of the demarcation between chief and field and the use of the keys and tiara as the charges, seems to indicate use of the arms of the Holy See in place of personal arms of an individual pope.  In all this, there is no mention of tinctures and consequently no indication of a key of a particular tincture being in bend or in bend sinister.  Esoglou (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read over the whole ref, but did notice some of what you said about the keys in the bend in other sources, although there appear to be few book sources, so I am attempting to refine my search. Also I think I may need to review Vatican history a bit for a better understanding of the emblem and Coat. I have found reference that declares that the Coat of Arms uses a shield only because of the Popes coat of arms and the shield representing them in some manner, but need to find more information. Right now i am just sorting through the tremendous amount of images of the emblem and coat of arms to determine where they best fit in all of this. I do have a question...is it really neccesary to have both red shield images with such slight differences? Is that really encyclopedic value or is it possible it is simply confusing the reader visualy?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor has commented: "Thinking about this in terms of heraldry, coats of arms are supposed to identify an individual (or corporate body); so strictly speaking it doesn't make sense to have a single coat of arms for both the Holy See and the Vatican State: they ought to be different in some way." And the article includes the statement: "When the state was set up in 1929, the keys in the arms of the Holy See ... were reversed to provide a distinctive symbol for the new entity."  Were it not for Bellae artes and perhaps other Wikipedia editors who, on the basis of a hand-out prepared by someone in the Holy See Press Office who seems not to be a heraldic expert, say that the two coats of arms are identical, there would be no need to give the Vatican City State arms (silver key in bend) as associated with the Holy See: it would be enough to illustrate the coat of arms (gold key in bend) that is attributed to the Holy See in specialist heraldic publications.  But images on Commons of the Holy See's coat of arms that presented it as with gold key in bend have all been overwritten by Bellae artes or by editors who on the contrary uphold the thesis of "only an emblem, no coat of arms in the strict sense".  I am reluctant to start a revert war with them on Commons, and I wish that research by people like yourself would provide clarity, one way or the other.  Esoglou (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this being overlooked?
I pointed this out several times, yet those that argue the contrary seem to ignore it.

The coat of arms of Vatican State have the gold key in bend sinister. The "emblem" of the Holy See has the gold key also in bend sinister. Why would the coat of arms of the Holy See randomly switch the gold key to in bend?

The Holy See and the Vatican State are just two sides of the same coin. For those that would not recognise the religious sovereignty, the Catholic Church maintains a sovereign nation-state, which is run by the Roman Curia and pope and not a separate and unevolved political group.

If there is to be two distinct arms to distinguish the religious side of the Vatican from the political, there would be more than just the reversal of the keys' colours. It doesn't make sense, either, to adopt a symbol for the Holy See that is exactly the same as the Vatican State's arms without the shield

The position of the gold and silver keys never mattered early on; they were both shown argent at first, then one and one and, seemingly, the position fo the gold and argent keys were not standardized until the Vatican State adopted a coat of arms. Of course, there are examples of revered colours still occasionally because of human error, and that has caused this false notion of the Vatican State and Holy See having seperate arms.

And we are ignoring the most important source of all, the Vatican itself. The Italian version of the press release is the only version that mentions the Holy See having an emblem. The English, Portugese, German, Spanish and so on all mention the Vatican and Holy See having one and the same coat of arms. Even that Italian version that mentions the emblem goes on to describe a coat of arms only, no emblem. Nor does it state, in the Italian version, that the Holy See has no arms, nor that those arms are distincly different. So how is it that everyone can agree that the English, German, Portuguese and Spanish versions can contain errors and be dismissed, but the Italian version can not be questioned? Woudln't it make more sense that the Italian version made an error since it is the odd man out here, and doesn't describe or even mention oncein the article what the title alludes to? Bellae artes (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are only going by such a link I would think we would need a secondary source to make any claims of the color changes being anything but a reversal of the artwork...as is the very way the two differing peices were created...just reversing the image, not even bothering to switch the colors themselves. I have to wonder if this is not being looked into enough. We should calrify this.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * THe Vatican website shows one emblem and one coat of arms for both the Holy See and Vatican City. The colours were not standardized until 1929, and even then they were loosely applied. The pope that standardized the colours as gold and whte actually used a flag with two gold keys on it. Some editorsare making too much out of it, even going so far as to dismiss the Vatican itself on the issueof its own coat of arms. Bellae artes (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that Amadscientist is right: what Wikipedia expects of us is to report what reliable secondary sources state, not to insert personal arguments about what is implied, though not expressly stated, in sources primary or secondary. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would we give more credence to secondary sources than a primary source? The primary source, the Vatican itself, stated there is one coat of arms. Bellae artes (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bellae is new and perhaps doesn't understand our policies. Secondary sourcing is required for making such claims. The Vatican isn't even really the primary source. It is just an official site. Because they make a claim does not make it either accurate or the actual source of the information. To be clear, the Vatican website is like the official website of any organisation and can be used to source claims they make, ut not to make the claim that they are the ulitmate authority on the subject, as with any other group or organisation.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be the case for, say, political views. The Vatican gets to decide what its coat of arms is, by law and custom, which means the Vatican is the ultimate source here. Just as the ultimate source for the U.S. arms isn't some blog, but the U.S. goverment and it's description of its coat of arms in the constitution. The Vatican decided in 2001 what the arms of the Holy See/Vatican State are, which can be seen ont eh website and read in teh Fundimental Laws of the Vatican State. No blog or book can contradict that, and any that do are printing lies or misinformation. Bellae artes (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That comes uncomfortably close to a legal threat.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no it doesn't. Mostly because there wa no threat or talk of legal action. You kinda need both to have a threat of legal action. Bellae artes (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Vatican, in the sense of Vatican City State, has indeed decided by a law whose text we can quote what its coat of arms is. There is no dispute about the identity of the coat of arms of Vatican City.  We have no such enactment by or for the Holy See.  The Holy See Press Office did not enact, and did not have the authority to enact, the coat of arms of the Holy See.  Your interpretation of the information (not enactment) that the Press Office gave is not infallible.  Flanker and Fry's contradictory interpretation of exactly the same information shows how unreliable is yours, to uphold which you have to discard the Italian version of the information, calling it the odd man out and mistaken.  Similarly, to uphold his interpretation, Flanker has to call the non-Italian versions mistaken translations.  As Amadscientist has said, secondary sources are needed to support either of the interpretations of the information advanced by you and by Flanker and Fry.  By contrast, the statements by experts in heraldry are clear and unambiguous.  Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is some specifics on Coat of Arms and copyright from Commons. Very interesting information about SVG versions of CoA and related information on ownership etc.. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Existence of a Holy See coat of arms

 * The web site is the official web site of the Holy See, not only the Press Office, so it is clear that what is written there is the official position of the Holy See. Moreover, the symbol is used in all the web sites (both Vatican City and Holy See) is an emblem and never a coat of arms.
 * It is therefore necessary to divide the problem into two parts: symbol used to the present day and historical symbolism.
 * The first one is resolved, since the use evidenced by both official web sites, and official documents (examples: here, here, here, here, here and here and... here: file:Benedictus XVI pont max pontif I.jpg).
 * The second one is pending. --F l a n k e r (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about the coat of arms of the Holy See, not about the symbol that, every agrees, it (also) has. The documentation of the Holy See Press Office on the official website of the Holy See does not say the Holy See has no coat of arms.  The several authoritative sources cited in the article say the Holy See does have a coat of arms. The question of whether the Holy See has a coat of arms is indeed, as you say, resolved. Esoglou (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an example will make this even more clear. The harp, as an emblem of Ireland, is on the reverse of Irish coins, euro and pre-euro (see images here).  In various colours the emblem appears on government documents and letters and on Irish passports.  That does not mean there is no such thing as a coat of arms of Ireland (blazoned as azure a harp or, stringed argent).  Esoglou (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)