NationStates Jolt Archive

The name the Pope chooses is the first important act of any pope. It shows what policies the pope wants to fallow. John Paul II chose his name as a combination of the preceding three popes, who were all reformers. If the next pope is John Paul III, it may mean that he wishes to carry out JP2's policies. But what do the other names mean? All I really know is what Pius means, and that means that he intends to remain conservative. But what are the others?

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=357949

It seems that there's been no real single standard throughout history
for "pontifical onomastics" (e.g. the reasoning behind papal names.)
Motives have ranged from honoring those who have helped a new pope, to
recalling those who have helped the new popes' families, or even to
reinforcing "political interests".

This last motive can be seen most prominently during the Great Schism
when the Roman Pope-names recalled prior Roman names, and the Avignon
Popes chose the names of Popes partial to France.

In an article by Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller for "The Papacy: An
Encyclopedia", we find the following regarding "recent" Popes:

-----------
From the 16th century, the name chosen has invariably been inspired by
the principle of pietas: PAUL IV, GREGORY XIV, CLEMENT X, INNOCENT XI,
INNOCENT
XII, CLEMENT XII, CLEMENT XIII, BENEDICT XIV, CLEMENT XIV, PIUS VII,
PIUS VIII, and PIUS XII took the names of those predecessors who had
raised them to the cardinalate.

JULIUS III, PAUL V, and GREGORY XV chose the name of the pope who had
launched them on their curial CAREER.

CLEMENT VIII, LEO XI, INNOCENT X, ALEXANDER VII, and INNOCENT XIII
chose the name of the pope who had actively supported their family.

PAUL IV, PIUS V, SIXTUS V, and ALEXANDER VIII adopted the names of
those predecessors whose nephews had contributed to their election.

Taking a predecessor’s name not only was a way of giving symbolic
thanks but also implied the wish to be faithful to a spiritual
heritage. Hence the stereotypical, conservative character of
pontifical names in the modern era. Julius, Marcellus, and Sixtus were
chosen once; as for the others, the choice of names over the roughly
four centuries from the council of TRENT to VATICAN II boils down to
nine: Paul, Pius, Gregory, Urban, Innocent, Clement, Leo, Alexander,
and Benedict. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the name Clement takes
the lead, and then, until 1958, the name Pius.

John XXIII (A. Roncalli, 1958) was the first to take the name of a
medieval pope, thus symbolically emphasizing the end of the “papacy of
the Piuses.” His successor PAUL VI’s choice was a subjective one,
inspired primarily by a theological consideration. John Paul I was the
first pope in history to adopt a double name, but his choice still
obeyed the principle of respectful pietas toward his predecessors. The
pontifical name of JOHN PAUL II invokes the memory of his three
immediate predecessors.

I'm looking, but have only seen some menyion that the pope's name choice usually reflects how they felt about the popes whose names they share, and how they feel about their policies. Obviously, the most dramatic name choice would be Peter II because they would seek to be like Peter, a fairly bold assumption. If I find anything I'll post it.

So basically, if the next pope takes any new name, then it indicates that he'll be different from the last few popes?

So basically, if the next pope takes any new name, then it indicates that he'll be different from the last few popes?

Probably. But then again he may do it to honor a pope from the past and so it may be only honorary in purpose.

I can't find anything definite yet.

I'm looking, but have only seen some menyion that the pope's name choice usually reflects how they felt about the popes whose names they share, and how they feel about their policies. Obviously, the most dramatic name choice would be Peter II because they would seek to be like Peter, a fairly bold assumption. If I find anything I'll post it.
The church is now so large that it really can't come under life threatening pressure. The church under Peter was, and he made it thrive. That's why I find it inappropriate for there to ever be a Peter II.

The church is now so large that it really can't come under life threatening pressure. The church under Peter was, and he made it thrive. That's why I find it inappropriate for there to ever be a Peter II.

I think so. Peter was just too great a leader for the Church and was the only one to meet and travel with Jesus, so for anyone else to take it would be inappropriate.

So basically, if the next pope takes any new name, then it indicates that he'll be different from the last few popes?
Here is a detailed article about papal names, in pdf format
http://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/papacy/onomastics.pdf

yeah, it looks like you're right, the article states that taking a predecssor's name implied the "wish to be faithful to a spiritual heritage... hence the stereotypical, conservative character of pontifical names in the modern era (since the council of Trent)." Nine names have been used between the council of Trent and Vatican II... John XXIII was the first to choose a different name from these nine, probably to reflect his theological break from his immediate predecessors.

Probably. But then again he may do it to honor a pope from the past and so it may be only honorary in purpose.

But if he was honoring that pope, it was because he likes something about him. Therefore, he probably wants to emulate him, either in style or in substance.

And now that I think about it, does anyone want another Urban? Urban II launched the crusades. Urban V (I believe) controled most of Europe. A pope taking that name would be really scary.

Here is a detailed article about papal names, in pdf format
http://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/papacy/onomastics.pdf

yeah, it looks like you're right, the article states that taking a predecssor's name implied the "wish to be faithful to a spiritual heritage... hence the stereotypical, conservative character of pontifical names in the modern era (since the council of Trent)." Nine names have been used between the council of Trent and Vatican II... John XXIII was the first to choose a different name from these nine, probably to reflect his theological break from his immediate predecessors.
I'm sorry, I can't open that file.

Try this:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:58ShpncviVkJ:www.routledge-ny.com/ref/papacy/onomastics.pdf+&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Try this:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:58ShpncviVkJ:www.routledge-ny.com/ref/papacy/onomastics.pdf+&hl=en&client=firefox-a
It works. Thanks.

And now that I think about it, does anyone want another Urban? Urban II launched the crusades. Urban V (I believe) controled most of Europe. A pope taking that name would be really scary.

The last Urban, Urban VIII was also not so great. He was involved in the 30 years' war, a brutal war by all accounts. I would be worried if a pope chose Urban to say the least.

The last Urban, Urban VIII was also not so great. He was involved in the 30 years' war, a brutal war by all accounts. I would be worried if a pope chose Urban to say the least.
I'd probably leave the church for a while if that happened. But it probably won't. The most shocking name that can be chosen as of now may be Pius. Or perhaps the pope will choose a new name, like Thomas, Kyle, or maybe even Gannon :p . It's not as outlandish as it may sound. John Paul was just created in the past quarter century.

The last Urban, Urban VIII was also not so great. He was involved in the 30 years' war, a brutal war by all accounts. I would be worried if a pope chose Urban to say the least.

We still have to remember that the church once controlled the world. This is no longer true. If the Vatican actually tried to start a war......., well lets just say even Italy could beat them :p

We still have to remember that the church once controlled the world. This is no longer true. If the Vatican actually tried to start a war......., well lets just say even Italy could beat them :p
Maybe. But those Swiss Guard are tough. Don't let their silly outfits fool you. They are armed with the latest weaponry, and are trained in combat to at least the level of a US Navy Seal. I'm pretty sure that they have artillery pieces laying around, too. They can easily hold off the Italian army for a few hours.

Here's a list I found that I feel is wonderful.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
It gives us the names and a brief description of each pope, including how often each name was used.