Non-repeated Pope names

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pieman333272

Guest
I recently took a look at a list of Pope names and found that many did not repeat, particularly from the 5th century and earlier. I asked my dad’s friend, a lay Deacon about this, and he said because modern Popes were not considered worthy to take early Popes’ Pope names. With all respect to the Deacon, I can’t understand my that is.I can see it for why there is no “Peter II”, but I don’t see how that applies to Linus, Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus, etc., while Pius, another early Church name, is repeated 12 (14 if you count Anti-popes) times. So, is there any particular reason early pope names aren’t repeated? Was the Deacon right? or were they just bad popes? Or… what?
 
Pieman333272 said:
I recently took a look at a list of Pope names and found that many did not repeat, particularly from the 5th century and earlier. I asked my dad’s friend, a lay Deacon about this, and he said because modern Popes were not considered worthy to take early Popes’ Pope names. With all respect to the Deacon, I can’t understand my that is.I can see it for why there is no “Peter II”, but I don’t see how that applies to Linus, Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus, etc., while Pius, another early Church name, is repeated 12 (14 if you count Anti-popes) times. So, is there any particular reason early pope names aren’t repeated? Was the Deacon right? or were they just bad popes? Or… what?
Click to expand...
Early Popes used their own names until Mercurius became Pope in 533. He realized the irony of a Pope having the name of a pagan god. So he started the tradition of Popes taking regal names, he became John II. Since then Popes would choose the name of a saint or previous pope who they admired or whom has the same particular mission in the Church as they have.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Early Popes used their own names until Mercurius became Pope in 533. He realized the irony of a Pope having the name of a pagan god. So he started the tradition of Popes taking regal names, he became John II. Since then Popes would choose the name of a saint or previous pope who they admired or whom has the same particular mission in the Church as they have.
Click to expand...
Right. These were the personal names of these people (except Anacletus, who most likely never existed). It just doesn’t make much sense for later popes to adopt these names.
 
^ What they said.

Also, in regards to Peter, it’s generally considered “too much of an honor” to name oneself after the Chief of the Apostles and the First among Equals. Most Popes (rightly) see themselves as unworthy of such a title.

It’s also probably in light of St. Malachy’s prophecy which states that the last Pope will be Pope Peter II. I pretty much believe in his prohpecy, and I think that Pope Peter II will be the next Pope God-willing.
 
Oh, I see, so since most of them are Pagan names, they don’t want to repeat it? And how about names only repeated once or twice? Why did Sylvester, Paschal, Victor, etc. all fall out of favor? Since most of the times they were used after the 5th century before their fall from popularity, I am curious as to why they aren’t used anymore.
 
Pieman333272 said:
Oh, I see, so since most of them are Pagan names, they don’t want to repeat it? And how about names only repeated once or twice? Why did Sylvester, Paschal, Victor, etc. all fall out of favor? Since most of the times they were used after the 5th century before their fall from popularity, I am curious as to why they aren’t used anymore.
Click to expand...
I meant that the first 500 years of Popes used their own names, and perhaps some Popes after John II who’s name happens to be a Christian name. Its only part of the reason why Popes change their names. The other reason I believe is that they adopt the name to shape their Pontificate. John Paul II chose the name because he believed that he was continuing and completing what John Paul I began because of his short reign as Pope. Benedict XVI chose the name I believe because of one of the earlier Pope Benedicts (forgot which one) helped the spread of Christianity across Europe. And Benedict XVI wants to revitalize Catholicism in Europe.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Early Popes used their own names until Mercurius became Pope in 533. He realized the irony of a Pope having the name of a pagan god. So he started the tradition of Popes taking regal names, he became John II. Since then Popes would choose the name of a saint or previous pope who they admired or whom has the same particular mission in the Church as they have.
Click to expand...
Pope Dionysus was certainly one of the more ironic early papal names, for the same reasons stated above.
 
Rolltide said:
Pope Dionysus was certainly one of the more ironic early papal names, for the same reasons stated above.
Click to expand...
And let’s not forget Pope Lando, one of the most awesome unrepeated pontifical names:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
ConstantineTG said:
I meant that the first 500 years of Popes used their own names, and perhaps some Popes after John II who’s name happens to be a Christian name. Its only part of the reason why Popes change their names. The other reason I believe is that they adopt the name to shape their Pontificate. John Paul II chose the name because he believed that he was continuing and completing what John Paul I began because of his short reign as Pope. Benedict XVI chose the name I believe because of one of the earlier Pope Benedicts (forgot which one) helped the spread of Christianity across Europe. And Benedict XVI wants to revitalize Catholicism in Europe.
Click to expand...
In the East, many bishops follow this, taking a new name upon ordination to the Episcopacy, or upon enthronement.

Monastics, Friars, and other religious, both east and west, also often change their names upon profession of simple vows. In the East, it is not unheard of to do so again upon perpetual vows, or upon becoming a schemamonk or hierodeacon.

Even an adult being baptized or chrismated may change their name.

Biblicly, a change of name indicates a personal covenant with God. Most notably, Abram became Abraham, Simon became Peter, and Saul became Paul.

When a bishop does this, he has made a promise to the Lord, and showing all that he has done so, dying to self in service to the Lord as Christ’s Vicar to that diocese.

No less so when the Pope does so; his life as a diocesan or ordered cleric ends; he lives now solely for the work of the Lord, he is led where he needs be by his household, he no longer keeps his own schedule, and accepts an asceticism quite profound and exceedingly visible in the public eye.

The choice of name, now that’s a matter of choice.
 
Pieman333272 said:
I recently took a look at a list of Pope names and found that many did not repeat, particularly from the 5th century and earlier. I asked my dad’s friend, a lay Deacon about this, and he said because modern Popes were not considered worthy to take early Popes’ Pope names. With all respect to the Deacon, I can’t understand my that is.I can see it for why there is no “Peter II”, but I don’t see how that applies to Linus, Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus, etc., while Pius, another early Church name, is repeated 12 (14 if you count Anti-popes) times. So, is there any particular reason early pope names aren’t repeated? Was the Deacon right? or were they just bad popes? Or… what?
Click to expand...
Linus and (Ana)Cletus, St Peter’s successors, far from being bad Popes, are saints in heaven, honoured in the first Eucharistic Prayer of the OF Mass. So THEIR names certainly haven’t been abandoned because they were bad examples, the contrary.

And on the flip side, Alexander VI was a notoriously bad Pope, as was John XII (the so-called ‘worst Pope’ - with fairly good reason!), and numerous successors took THEIR names anyway.

Truth is, some names just go out of fashion - you’d be hard put to find many Hildegardes or Gertrudes, Osberts or Wulfstans around these days, for example.

It’s no reflection on the goodness or badness of people who in the past had those names, it’s just … one of those things. Fashions in names change like fashions in everything else. 🤷
 
LilyM said:
Linus and (Ana)Cletus, St Peter’s successors, far from being bad Popes, are saints in heaven, honoured in the first Eucharistic Prayer of the OF Mass. So THEIR names certainly haven’t been abandoned because they were bad examples, the contrary.

And on the flip side, Alexander VI was a notoriously bad Pope, as was John XII (the so-called ‘worst Pope’ - with fairly good reason!), and numerous successors took THEIR names anyway.

Truth is, some names just go out of fashion - you’d be hard put to find many Hildegardes or Gertrudes, Osberts or Wulfstans around these days, for example.

It’s no reflection on the goodness or badness of people who in the past had those names, it’s just … one of those things. Fashions in names change like fashions in everything else. 🤷
Click to expand...
Also Pope Benedict XVI has a perfectly good Christian name he could have just retained. I guess he doesn’t want to be confused with the other Holy father with the same name 😉
 
Pieman333272 said:
I rs.I can see it for why there is no “Peter II”, but I don’t see how that applies to Linus, Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus, etc., while Pius, another early Church name, is repeated 12 (14 if you count Anti-popes) times. So, is there any particular reason early pope names aren’t repeated? ?
Click to expand...
can you imagine Raymond Arroyo, let alone msm news commentators stumbling over these names? heaven help us.
 
Pieman333272 said:
I recently took a look at a list of Pope names and found that many did not repeat, particularly from the 5th century and earlier. I asked my dad’s friend, a lay Deacon about this…
Click to expand...
As an aside, there is no such thing as a lay deacon. A deacon is not a layman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top