P
peary1
Guest
Until the Church pronounces pagan names as official ‘saint’ names, I shall abide by my previous belief.
- Status
A
Apryl
Guest
But what makes the name ‘pagan’? We have had a lot of saints… but every name that exists today is NOT a saint name… and every name that was given to a saint before that saint was saint-ed was not a saint name.Until the Church pronounces pagan names as official ‘saint’ names, I shall abide by my previous belief.
I don’t know how many children you will be responsible for naming, or having a vote in the naming, but your logic is faulty - at least based on what you’ve said so far.
Let us not forget: part of the problem in the Garden of Eden was not the adherence to what God told them, but in their embellishment of what God told them.
P
peary1
Guest
‘Pagan’ names are identified by anything that is from nature - animal, vegetable or mineral! It is true that lots of saints had pagan names, but they became saints and their names took on an entirely different level of spiritual meaning, just as our resurrection will. Naming our children after certain saints not only gives honor and glory to the saints but also teaches about the Communion of Saints of the Church. There is a spiritual element which becomes present where otherwise it would not.But what makes the name ‘pagan’? We have had a lot of saints… but every name that exists today is NOT a saint name… and every name that was given to a saint before that saint was saint-ed was not a saint name.
I don’t know how many children you will be responsible for naming, or having a vote in the naming, but your logic is faulty - at least based on what you’ve said so far.
Let us not forget: part of the problem in the Garden of Eden was not the adherence to what God told them, but in their embellishment of what God told them.
There are saints whose names are numbers one through nine so you can name children after them. This isn’t one of our customs so it may seem odd to us, but it was common in antiquity, and is common in other parts of the world today. Names derived from feasts of the Church are permitted: Concepcion from Conception of the Virgin, Nancy from Annunciation, Noel or Noelle from Christmas, Pascal and Anastasia from Pascha… Names of angels are commonly used. Children are also named after the Christian virtues: Faith, Hope, Love, and Sophia are also names of saints.
You can also give your child a non-Christian name as long as you also use a Christian ‘baptismal’ name (this name is used when the child comes to any sacraments of the Church): then when your child becomes a saint, a new name can be added to the lists of saints. By the way, if someone is received into the Church who has already been baptized, it is not proper to give them a new name. An additional name may be given, if desired.
Saints and their Feast Days were very important to the peoples of Eastern Europe. Many parents consulted their pastor and/or the Roman Calendar to name their children. The parents looked for a saint whose feast day was on or near the birth or baptismal date of their child. The feast day was unusally not more than three weeks after the birth or baptism.
Until the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century, both saints’ names and pagan names were used. At the time of the Counter-Reformation, pagan names were abandoned and the Lutherans began to use only the names of saints found in the Bible or Old Testament names. Also, the number of names given to an infant has varied from century to century.
The custom of adding a secular name to the Christian name began in the 1500s, giving the child two first names: for example, Johann Georg and Anna Margaretha. To further complicate matters, in the 1600s children were also given two baptismal names. In the later part of the 1700s, single names were again popular, but by the close of the 1800s double names were back in style. When a person had two given names, it was customary to address that person by the second name. However, church records may have used either the first or second name or both.
Parents may have kept a favorite name in the family by giving their children two first names. Sometimes all or most of the boys in one family were named Johann (or any variation): Johann Georg, Johann Wilhelm, Johann Caspar, etc. This is what my family did until the mid 1800s.
My logic is not faulty. In fact, it is quite logical from a Christian perspective.
P
Phemie
Guest
While a nice practice this is not required by the Church.
P
peary1
Guest
Various Fathers and spiritual writers, and here and there a synodal decree, have exhorted the faithful to give no names to their children in baptism but those of canonized saints or of the angels of God, it must be confessed that there has never been a time in the history of the Church when these injunctions have been at all strictly attended to. They were certainly not heeded during the early or the later Middle Ages.That I know.
When I was in school back in the early 60s (elementary) most, if not all children had what could be considered ‘Christian’ names and not pagan sounding names. This was both Catholic and Protestant. By the end of the 60s, however, the whole naming process was radically changed.
When I was in school back in the early 60s (elementary) most, if not all children had what could be considered ‘Christian’ names and not pagan sounding names. This was both Catholic and Protestant. By the end of the 60s, however, the whole naming process was radically changed.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Obviously I missed something, because…
Jesus used precisely the technique you are arguing against to name St. Peter. Jesus saw that rocks are strong and good for building upon, and so he named the leader of his apostles Kepha. Certainly Jesus was no pagan, right? Why shouldn’t parents, who happen to like willows for whatever quality they may possess, call their daughter Willow?Is that Salt Peter or Saint Peter to whom you are referring?
Of course, there are nature-related names which are now saints’ names, but how do you think those people got those names? Surely not all of them had the good fortune to be converts!
As I have mentioned above, by your logic, Jesus gave Simon a pagan name. We know that this must not be the case, but rather Jesus chose the name because of a particular quality he saw in the rock, and which either he saw, or hoped to see, or foresaw in Simon. I truly believe that there is nothing wrong with us doing similar for our children.
I disagree with your last sentence also. There is not only one way to give honour to the saints. Similarly, not everything we do must be done specifically to give them honour. Equally, a naming-after does not automatically translate into honour, and a family not naming after a saint is not less capable of giving honour to the saints. There is more than one way to give honour to the saints, and it does not have to involve naming your child after one of them.
Thank you for the vote of confidence
P
peary1
Guest
Obviously I missed something, because…
Jesus used precisely the technique you are arguing against to name St. Peter. Jesus saw that rocks are strong and good for building upon, and so he named the leader of his apostles Kepha. Certainly Jesus was no pagan, right? Why shouldn’t parents, who happen to like willows for whatever quality they may possess, call their daughter Willow?
** I really don’t care WHAT they name their daughter. She has to live with the name. Yes, and you are missing the point. I SAID that the names of saints have special significance. Not only will the person’s namesake watch over them but it ties one into the Communion of Saints and all that that encompasses. Although presently the Church has not issued any type of decree with regard to naming a child at Baptism, many of the Church Fathers have written on this, and have encouraged parents to present their child with a Christian or saint’s name to Baptism. It’s like Bishop Sheen. His first name is not Fulton; it is Peter. He assumed that name on the death of his mother as a way of honoring her. His mother’s maiden name was Fulton. But his baptismal name was Peter. One day he may become a saint as he is up for beatification anyway. Someday we may have many 'Fulton’s running around the world in honor of him.
And while we are discussing Peter, in the Gospels although Simon’s name was changed by Christ to Petros (or Kepha) he was still known as Simon bar Jonah.
And once again, I am against the naming of children by Christian parents using pagan names of the earth. By the way, I like willows too. They make good mallets for Apache water drums as well as cradles, not to mention firewood.**
Of course, there are nature-related names which are now saints’ names, but how do you think those people got those names? Surely not all of them had the good fortune to be converts!
**Most of them were in the early Church. Read your church history. You know, the Church is over two-thousand years old. There have been many saints officially proclaimed through the centuries - tens of thousands, to be exact. The Church did not begin with Vatican II :dts: **
As I have mentioned above, by your logic, Jesus gave Simon a pagan name. We know that this must not be the case, but rather Jesus chose the name because of a particular quality he saw in the rock, and which either he saw, or hoped to see, or foresaw in Simon. I truly believe that there is nothing wrong with us doing similar for our children.
Peter’s name was still Simon bar Jonah. The significance of what he was to be called is apparent when you read Matthew 16:13-18. It is the same with Paul. In Hebrew, his name continued to be Saul. But in Greek, it is translated as Paul, or Paolus. We could go on and on about name translations - Petros (Greek), Piero or Pietro (Italian), Per (German), Butros (Arabic), Pierre (French), Pedro (Spanish), etc. etc. And Simon was recognized as a saint not with his original name of Simon, but by the Greek name of Petros or Peter. Yes, it means ‘Rock’ but it is now spiritualized in a very significant way. It is no longer pagan but a resurrected name for all eternity. THAT is the difference.
I disagree with your last sentence also. There is not only one way to give honour to the saints. Similarly, not everything we do must be done specifically to give them honour.
**It is a very direct way in which they can and should be honored, whether it be through our devotion to the Saints via the Communion of Saints, or special devotion to our favorite saint, or even naming one of our children after one. Just because you disagree does not change my mind. :nope: **
Equally, a naming-after does not automatically translate into honour, and a family not naming after a saint is not less capable of giving honour to the saints. There is more than one way to give honour to the saints, and it does not have to involve naming your child after one of them.
It’s a wonderful practice, and, as I said before, I would never have dreamed to name any of my children after an animal, vegetable or mineral unless - unless - the name has been spiritualized by the Church in recognition of the saint in question.
Thank you for the vote of confidence
A
AnotherChance
Guest
My child does have exemplary non-Catholic grandparents. The answer to your last question is yes, I would not.I doubt if you have access to an exhaustive listing of saints!
Some names are more popular than others.How many are named ‘Christopher’, and then there is the thing that says that Christopher was removed as a saint.
Supposing your child had non-Catholic grandparents, who were exemplory people in their own right. Would you not give your child that name simply because you didn’t know it had been the name of a canonized saint?
Funny that you are defending people’s choice to give their child the name they want, yet your tone is rather challenging toward my choice to give my children saints’ names. I choose to do this. I think it is a good idea. In my opinion, we need more adherence to tradition, not less. Sorry if this offends you. We most certainly hope to see St. Apryl in the future. God bless you!
A
Apryl
Guest
I am not offended.
Just like I’m not offended when people name the first son after teh father (I think it reeeks of lack of creativity, and narcisism, but hey… it’s YOUR child, and your naming choice)
The issue (for me) is not what you would choose to name your child, but more of what one would ridicule others for naming their child.
If I were about to have a child, and considering a name, to have someone who I respecxted to tell me that I couldn’t name my child what I wanted… a stress that a parent-to-be really doesn’t need. Not that you can’t choose who you want… but I don’t think it’s fair to give OTHER grief for their choices.
The other thing is ONLY not giving a child a name because it wasn’t found on some listing of saints. So often, we hear a name, but because we didn’t know it was the name of a saint, assume it’s not the name of a canonized saint. It may just be!
As for the ‘St. Apryl’… we’ll see… I try to do what I can to show my love for God… that’s all I can do!
P
peary1
Guest
I am not offended.
Just like I’m not offended when people name the first son after teh father (I think it reeeks of lack of creativity, and narcisism, but hey… it’s YOUR child, and your naming choice)
Up until the 20th century, people of European descent always named their firstborn after the father’s father if the child was a boy, or the father’s mother if it was a girl. That is how the historical lineage was upheld.
The issue (for me) is not what you would choose to name your child, but more of what one would ridicule others for naming their child.
As I said, you seem to approach this as somesort of ‘game’ instead of looking at the spiritual side of the practice.
If I were about to have a child, and considering a name, to have someone who I respecxted to tell me that I couldn’t name my child what I wanted… a stress that a parent-to-be really doesn’t need. Not that you can’t choose who you want… but I don’t think it’s fair to give OTHER grief for their choices.
**WHO CARES WHAT YOU NAME YOUR CHILD? You can name him or her after a can of tuna, for all I care. For Catholic Christians, however, they need to be aware of the great value in naming their children after saints. **
The other thing is ONLY not giving a child a name because it wasn’t found on some listing of saints. So often, we hear a name, but because we didn’t know it was the name of a saint, assume it’s not the name of a canonized saint. It may just be!
For you to challenge Catholics on how they wish to name their children is really a moot point. Catholics have a special relationship with the Communion of Saints and they need to be aware of this. If nonChristians or nonCatholics want to name their child after a vegetable, animal, or mineral, that is their choice.
A
AnotherChance
Guest
Well, then we agree.The issue (for me) is not what you would choose to name your child, but more of what one would ridicule others for naming their child.
If I were about to have a child, and considering a name, to have someone who I respecxted to tell me that I couldn’t name my child what I wanted… a stress that a parent-to-be really doesn’t need. Not that you can’t choose who you want… but I don’t think it’s fair to give OTHER grief for their choices.
The other thing is ONLY not giving a child a name because it wasn’t found on some listing of saints. So often, we hear a name, but because we didn’t know it was the name of a saint, assume it’s not the name of a canonized saint. It may just be!
As for the ‘St. Apryl’… we’ll see… I try to do what I can to show my love for God… that’s all I can do!
I wouldn’t ridicule anyone for their choice either.The assumption you mention was the experience I had with our priest not knowing that Benjamin was a saint. So I agree that people shouldn’t assume a name is not a saint, just because it’s not Michael or Teresa.
My oldest daughter does not have a saint’s name because we weren’t Catholic at the time. She is the only one with her first name at her Catholic High School, which has the advantage of creating less confusion. That said, if I were naming her today, I wouldn’t choose the name she has. But she does have her confirmation saint’s name, Gianna, to emulate.
M
mellowcalico
Guest
Is this really a Catholic tradition or a cultural tradition of Catholics who live in certain parts of the world? The reason I ask is because my family is Catholic and has been since at least the time of my great, great grandparents back in the late 19th century. Neither my mother, me or my daughter are named after a Saint (it wasn’t something I was even told to consider in the Baptism classes I took before my daughter was born). My grandmother is named after a Saint however (but also happens to be named after her mother). My great, great grandmother doesn’t have a name on my family tree so I am not sure about her but I think my grandmother and great grandmother share her name too.
Anyway, looking at others in my family tree going back to my great grandparents, some are named after Saints and some aren’t (but the ones that happen to be Saint names aren’t the more common Mary, Joesph, Peter, etc. I had to look them up to see if they happened to be Saints or not). Use of Saint names seems to pick up around the 1940s when the first generation to be born citizens of the U.S. started naming their children–but I wonder if that’s not because they wanted to give their children “American” names.
So it doesn’t seem to be a “tradition” at all in my family which makes me wonder if it’s primarily a Western European tradition and cultural, not religious in origin.
Anyway, looking at others in my family tree going back to my great grandparents, some are named after Saints and some aren’t (but the ones that happen to be Saint names aren’t the more common Mary, Joesph, Peter, etc. I had to look them up to see if they happened to be Saints or not). Use of Saint names seems to pick up around the 1940s when the first generation to be born citizens of the U.S. started naming their children–but I wonder if that’s not because they wanted to give their children “American” names.
So it doesn’t seem to be a “tradition” at all in my family which makes me wonder if it’s primarily a Western European tradition and cultural, not religious in origin.
A
Apryl
Guest
Ok… but I’m not European… it’s AFTER the 20th Century… and I am not talking about people naming their first children for the paternal grandparents.
I also know of people who named their child ‘Alicia’, because the grandmother was an ‘Alice’. Or “Jefferson”, because that was the mother’s maiden name. That was a bit of creativity, and it also upheld the lineage of the family.
I have cousins who had fathers who were brothers — both families had the same last name — and these brothers named their children the same names. Odd names, even, but the same names. I’m glad no one in the family has chosen to continue THOSE names, too.
Your opinion… I disagree… but you can think as you want.
Then I guess YOU care what I name my child
Very moot… as I am not challenging Catholics, or any one lese, on how they wish to name their children.
Actually, it is the same choice that Catholics have. You, and no one else, has the authority to tell any one what they MUST name their child, or even what the SHOULD name their child.
While it is a beautiful practice that many continue to perpetuate, we also have the option of choosing to name our children after non-Canonized saints. You could use a name and do it in other languages… name your child Ian, instead of John, for example… it’s still being named after St. John (or some other John, if that’s what you are donig)OH… and when you put all of your comments within my quote when you post, the next poster can’t quote you. You have to close the quote with a left bracket, /quote and then a right bracket. Then you post.
Hope this helps
A
Apryl
Guest
It’s mostly and outpouring of TRADITION. What is stated in Canon Law is that it not be some offensive name. You can NOT name your child after the devil, for example, and have it Baptised in the church.
Then, there were those folx who were not Catholic, who wanted to name their children what they wanted, and a Catholic would tell them, ‘you can’t name your child THAT’, or that the name they had chosen wasn’t spelled correctly.
Sort of like Ellis Island for the first names.
And if you got someone uneducated at the birth, you child’s biblical name could wind up misspelled… get to school, and the teacher tell you it wasn’t pronounced correctly, and have the child wind up with a whole new name
P
peary1
Guest
Actually, it is the same choice that Catholics have. You, and no one else, has the authority to tell any one what they MUST name their child, or even what the SHOULD name their child.
**And where did I ever say that *I ***had the authority (what the heck is THAT all about with YOU?) to tell anyone what they ‘must’ name their child or even what they ‘should’ name their child. I gave reasons why Catholic Christian parents SHOULD name their children after glorified saints. SHOULD is not the same as MUST. Look up the words in the dictionary, please.
OH… and when you put all of your comments within my quote when you post, the next poster can’t quote you. You have to close the quote with a left bracket, /quote and then a right bracket. Then you post.
I post the way I post.
A
Apryl
Guest
Yes, you do!
- Status