Assuming a new name as pope, or sister, or priest, etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitnomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Digitnomy

Guest
Popes have long assumed new names upon their election to the papacy. Some sisters and nuns assume new names, I think when they profess their vows. Some priests, monks, and brothers also do so.
  • Are there any general rules about who does and doesn’t assume a new name?
  • What is the history of this practice? Does it differ significantly in the Eastern Churches?
  • Among papal names, not all are normal given names, some are virtues or hortatory names (e.g. Innocent, Pius). Is this equally true for other groups?
 
Last edited:
Regarding the religious order members like sisters, brothers, monks and nuns taking new names, it depends on the order whether they do it and how they do it. I’ve read that in some cases their orders allow them to choose their name subject to approval, in other cases they’re expected to keep their own name and maybe just add an “of the” to the end (example: a woman’s given name is Joan, she becomes “Sister Joan of the Precious Blood”), and in still other cases they’re assigned a name, sometimes that of some member who already passed away so the name just gets re-used for new person entering.
 
It varies from order to order.

For many, the new name shows a dying of your former way of life to a new one, accompanied by a new name.

Deacon Christopher
 
A few months ago, I was sharing a meal with some local Sisters, and I inquired about the fact that in their congregation, many have gone the opposite way - they’ve changed their names back to their given names from birth rather than continuing to use their religious name. For some of the Vatican II era, it was because their religious names had been imposed by a superior following a rule they didn’t agree with (that’s no longer in force). For most, however, it’s practical - filing for Social Security and other things (especially health-related issues), it was a tremendous ordeal to explain (and adequately document) why Sally Smith was going by the “alias” of Mary Joseph of the Trinity.
 
Last edited:
In the case of Popes, the tradition started with John II whose birth name was Mercurius (the Latin form of the Roman God, Mercury). Considering it inappropriate to retain his birth name he took the name John as a regnal name (something not unknown in secular monarchies (George VI of the UK for example).

In the case of religious orders, it depends on the particular customs and constitutions of the order. Some require (and assign) a new name, while others leave it up to the individuals. I know a Dominican Priest who chose to take a new name and once told me of a “moment of terror as the lift back the cowl [hood] and you wait to find what name you’ve been lumped with”!
 
Digitnomy said:
Are there any general rules about who does and doesn’t assume a new name?
Click to expand...
Some orders do and some don’t. And even within the same order, it can vary from country to country. More information here:
40.png
Question about devotional titles Vocations
I cannot seem to find anything clear on the web about rules for selection of a devotional title for after a religious name. Example: In the name “St. John of the Cross” or “St. Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face”, the devotional title would be “of the Cross” or “of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face”. Do the titles have to be about God/ Jesus, Mary, a saint (e.g. “of St. Joseph”), or a Holy Mystery (e.g. “of the Trinity” or “of the Annunciation”)? Are there any other categories or t…
Click to expand...
 
I think its a wonderful act of humility to be provided with a new name by your superiors. It truly shows your adoration to our lord.
 
A new name has long been an important part of baptism. Inscribing the name in the book of the elect is an affirmation that this person is chosen by God, and is God’s beloved child. The new name is the sign of a new life.

This was adapted for other ceremonies, like confirmation or profession as a religious. The new name became a sign of conversion and a new life.

After Vatican II there was a renewed emphasis on the baptismal name. You could take a new name at confirmation, but it was a supplement to your core identity assumed at baptism. You could even use your baptismal again to reaffirm your identity in Christ.

For religious, returning to the baptismal name was encouraged in many places. The commitment to service or to becoming “perfect” was understood as beginning at baptism, and that profession was one step on the way, not a complete conversion away from your prior life.
 
Digitnomy said:
What is the history of this practice? Does it differ significantly in the Eastern Churches?
Click to expand...
In the East all Patriarchs, bishops, nuns and monks get a new name which is a name of a saint to protect and their guide them spiritually. Priests get new names only if they are also monks.
We do not have lay orders and in the case of an adult being baptized I guess they get new Christian names as well.
 
The retention (or resumption) of one’s original name in some congregations is to prioritize the significance of the original call of baptism.

In some communities, the “predicate” is called the title. In some communities, even when the religious name was given by the superior, individuals picked their own title, generally to reflect a particular personal devotion. In my research, the one that really stopped me in my tracks was from a 19th-century Erie Benedictine sister. I can’t remember her religious name without checking, but it was not unusual. However her title was “of the Bloody Sweat”!
 
I think it is a shame when religious don’t take a religious name and am saddened that some who have have reverted to their birth name. However, it is not really a discussion I want to get into. I am sure we all have own opinions on this.

What I wanted to pick upon is the fact there may be practical problems with the religious name. Here in the UK it would not be recognised legally as their name. I discovered this when I read the annual report of a religious community. The community was a registered charity and in the report the charity’s trustees were listed. None of the trustees were the sisters or so I assumed. As this intrigued me I contacted them. They assured me all the trustees were sisters but they are required by the Charity Commission (which regulates charities) to use their legal names. I would infer from this use of the NHS, state benefits, pensions, etc. would all have to be in their legal name.
 
One of the ex-nuns who wrote their autobiography went to college on the congregation’s dime (before exclaustrating) and was forced to use her legal name. She was in the UK, so I’m thinking it was Karen Armstrong, but not entirely sure.
 
Thomas Merton was the same (his religious name was Louis but his works were published under his legal name). There’s nothing to stop a religious changing their legal name to match their religious name but I’m guessing the reason they don’t do it is simply convenience - changing everything (banks, government departments, etc) would be a major hassle.
 
Many religious ended up with religious names that they found really inappropriate. Many women did not like having male names, for example (some didn’t mind, of course). Others had names of saints to whom they had no attraction. Whatever. But names are among what I think we can appreciate are really the incidentals of religious life–not its essence. Whether its a religious name, or a recognizable habit, or… They are not really the essence of a religious vocation, are they? Sure, some may be attracted by such things, but that is not enough to sustain a perpetual commitment. And I think it’s also not really up to those of us not in a community to judge the decisions it has made about garb, names, etc. Can we assume that whatever practices are followed–assuming they have the ratification of Rome or the local bishop–are assessed by the relevant authorities to be appropriate to that congregation?

I do think clarity of charism is important, but that may or may not be accompanied by religious garb, names, etc.
 
My new congregation seems to be going in the direction of the sisters taking a new name on their own. From what we’ve read of Sts Catherine Laboure and Rosalie Rendu, DC, that is what they did.
 
I also think its the same when you are a priest or nun or monk you no longer choose your clothing the church does.
 
This is certainly not true of all communities. Most today ,at least in the US, do not wear habits. And secular priests normally do not wear their collars when they are at leisure.
 
I don’t think that’s right.

The wearing of your collar is a witness of your vocation that your are serving our lord. I am discerning priesthood and if god willing O become a priest I will always be wearing collar and vestments with honor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top