Re: Caballero de Jure Sanguinis, Motu Proprio

In article <ets1s5$5v7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Francois R. Velde" <velde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In medio rec.heraldry aperuit Joseph McMillan <mcmillanndu@xxxxxxxxx> os suum:
On Mar 21, 9:44?am, "Nenad M. Jovanovich" <c...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I said, it?s the same with Martin Goldstraw of Whicairns -
?Caballero de Jure Sanguinis, Motu Proprio?:

http://goldstraw.org.uk/certificate-constantinian001.JPG

No ?of honour? there either?

Interesting. And the phrase "vengo en concederos el ingreso en la
S.O.M. Constantiniana de San Jorge" means "I come to grant you entry
into" the order, which certainly does imply membership, not just the
receipt of an honorary decoration.

Is it the "motu proprio" part that in this order's usage implies
"honorary"? (Understanding that there are different branches that may
do things differently.)

Well, reference needs to be made to the statutes of the Order, although
I remain confused.

According to the statutes, membership in the order requires being a Roman
Catholic (ch. III, art. 1) and various criteria of nobility, merit, and
age (ch. III, art. 2 and 3). The Grand Master can waive the latter of
his own motion (motu proprio), but not the former (ch. III, art. 5).

Thus, a "knight jure sanguinis, motu proprio" would have to be a
Roman Catholic who is not 21 or else does not display "old and
proven nobility". He would appear to be a full member of the Order
nonetheless.

A decree of Sep 19, 1988 allows the Grand Master to confer on non-RC
Christians an honorary Cross, the recipients of which are not members
of the Order but are considered decorated with the Constantinian cross
(art. 3). The designation of such would be "knight jure sanguinis and
of honor" (art. 2).

Both certificates, however, signed by the Grand Master, omit the designation
"of honor".

Back in the earlier thread on this, in December, Mr. Goldstraw clearly
stated that he (and Mr. Duncan) were

... both extremely honoured to be awarded the status of "Caballero
de Jure Sanguinis, D' Onore Moto Proprio"  (though the letter from the
Administrator omits the words "D' Onore", these words are included in
the separate letter from the Grand Master).

He also noted that one or both of these letters addressed him as
'confrere', which arguably can be taken as implying his membership in
the order, in distinction to merely having been granted an (honorary)
award.

Now the digital images of diplomas effecting these awards are available
online, both of which appear to omit the words "d'onore" (unless some
ingenious soul simply photoshopped them out, which is quite simple.
Somone could similarly replace the arms on the diploma with an
achievement from the family graves of Mr. Akins of that Ilk...).

But it is clear that awards "d'onore" are the only ones available to
non-Catholics, and were created especially by the 1988 addendum to the
order's statutes (availble online at--

http://www.constantinianorder.org/english/statutes.html

).

Given the apparent internal inconsistency of the diplomata and the
letters noted by Mr. Goldstraw, the only possible explanation is that
there was some careless error in the preparation of some of the
documents Mr. Goldstraw and Mr. Duncan have received. Or is it possible
that the order has quietly changed its practices (without altering the
statutes) and was admitting both men (non-Catholics) to full membership?
But if so, why would some of the correspondence use the phrase "d'onore"?

It is interesting that these diplomata have been placed online
(presumably by their recipients) when there is a clear question about
their statutory correctness.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
.