I’ve been thinking about this for a while and it seems unlikely the next Pope would want to be John Paul III. Too much to live up to.
John XXIV and Paul VII don’t seem all too likely either. John XXIII upset too many conservatives and Paul VI did the same with those who were more liberal.
So…
Pius seems to be out of the equation because the legacy of the last one, Pius XII, is rather uncomfortable.
Where to go now?
Innocent. I think not.
Urban. No.
Gregory, Benedict or Leo seem the three most likely. Leo XIII seems to have been modern enough, conservative enough and committed enough to the spread of democratic ideals to win out over the legacy of either Gregory XVI or Benedict XV.
Of course, Clement XIV had a hand in suppressing the Jesuits. That could be a popular idea for some folks in the Church today I suppose.
Sixtus VI just seems like a silly name.
Go ahead, say it out loud.
So, I guess my bet is on the next Pope being Leo XIV.
But then again, I’m not Catholic and have no idea how this all works.
Thoughts anyone? No disrespect to PJPII, the RCC or anyone at all. I’m just wondering about this.
That was the Pope’s name in the End-Times novel THE SEVEN LAST YEARS by Carol Balizet (all summed up in one volume & much better than any of the LEFT BEHIND stuff)- anyway- guess what his actual identity turned out to be?
I really have no idea what name the next Pope will take. I’m more curious if the following one will dare take the name “Peter”.
Well, if you think that Mel Gibson is too many, yes. You have to be about as conservative as Gibson, to be pissed by John XXIII’s work.
I’m betting on him not choosing Peter - anything else is open. Hopefully he won’t do Marx I, like in one of Morris West’s novels (I haven’t reread any of his Vatican-set novels for a while but I find them to be a world or two above other “novels with priest”).
The reason to change names was explaned very well in a Japanese novel I once read. You change names to indicate that your “self” is/has changed: your priorities, your life’s work, are different now than they were before. There is a big difference between being the bishop of any other diocese, or an administrative “drudge” in the Vatican, and being the Vicar of Christ.
Actually, if the next guy decides to honor this guy, I’m looking forward to the next pope being John Paul II II.
(I’m hoping for Ralph I.)
Aside from the tradition that the pope will take a new name, setting aside his former life and self, there are no rules regarding the name he chooses. Note that John Paul I broke the “rule” that popes would use only a single name. As the most powerful guy in the organization, the pope gets to pick his own name for whatever reason he wishes. (I’m betting against a Pope Judas any time soon.)
I don’t think taking the name “Peter” would be a dare as much as it would just be bordering on sacrilege. St. Peter (and by extension Pope Peter) was no ordinary Pope. You’re talking about a guy with firsthand, eyewitness knowledge of JC himself. A man the Big Guy has given extra special duties too.
I think it would make more sense for the new pope to pick a name that has no political resonance at all. Either a name no pope has used for centuries, or a name no pope has used ever. That way, he has the freedom to invent his own papacy without being compared to his namesake. (John Paul II obviously chose his name to honor his immediate predecessor, but that was safe, since John Paul I did not reign long enough to form any particular legacy to live up to.)
Nava - I agree one would have to be pretty conservative to be upset with the changes John XXIII initiated. I know a few Catholics who have expressed dismay about certain things Vatican II changed. And you are correct, they are very conservative Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass over the more common one today done in the vernacular.
Splanky and Mr. Moto - You are right that it would be a nice way to honor the current Pope and the John and Paul lines for the new one to choose John Paul III. That was my first expectation when I thought about this. I guess part of the reason my thinking changed had to do with comments several Catholic friends of mine made, namely that it would create expectations that might be difficult to live up to. Also, one person said it would be a bit unusual to use the same name three times in a row. In this list of Popes there haven’t ever been more than two in a row that had the same name. I realize this isn’t a rule. But then again I don’t think not using the name Peter is a rule. That seems to be more about tradition and respect I suppose.
So, no John Paul III wouldn’t be suprising. I just think circumstances indicate it isn’t a given.
And Brain Glutton - your reasoning is similiar to mine in arriving at my earlier idea that Leo would be a good choice.
Obviously . . . but “Jesus” is such a common personal name in Catholic countries (well, in Latin American countries, at least) that a Pope Jesus (without “Christ” appended) might not be out of the question. Of course, that would be Pope Jesus I. Jesus of Nazareth was never pope.
