Apropos of utterly nothing, this question suddenly popped into my mind.
Well, maybe apropos of nearly nothing, if not utterly nothing. I happened to be reading the Wiki about Pope Francis today for some reason.
When a dead Pope is declared a saint, is he (or someday maybe even she?) known by his given name or papal name? F’rinstance, when John Paul II is sainted, will he be Saint John Paul, or will he be Saint Karol? Likewise, when Francis is sainted (as seems likely, given the way he’s been carrying on), will he be Saint Francis or Saint Jorge?
If he is Saint Francis, will the name have some additional qualifier or number or something attached to it, to distinguish him from, you know, that other Saint Francis?
Popes leave their given names behind forever. Pope John Paul II (who is very likely to be canonized) would be called St. John Paul II. If Pope Francis I is ever canonized he would be St.Francis the First; his namesake is St.Francis of Assisi.
The same is true for the names assumed in religious orders. Thus, for instance, Mother Teresa will be known as Saint Teresa, or Saint Teresa of Calcutta if needed to disambiguate her from other Teresas, instead of Saint Anjezë (her birth name).
And there’s nothing new about saints sharing names. The Johns include the Evangelist, the Baptist, St. John Vianney, St. John Bosco, and about a dozen popes; the Thomases include the apostle, Moore, Aquinas, and Beckett; and even the Francises already have Francis of Assisi and Francis Xavier, among others. In fact, it’s to be expected that saints would share names, since most saints come from Christian upbringing, and most Christians through history have named their kids (directly or indirectly) after saints.
Which means that, if and when he’s canonised, while he will need an identifier to distinguish him from Francis of Assissi, Francis Xavier, Francis de Sales, Francis Borgia and other saints of that name, the identifier won’t be “I”.
When the figure popularly known as Padre Pio (baptismal name: Francesco Forgione) was canonised in 2002, he needed an indentifier to distinguish him from all the other saints called Pio. He became St. Pio of Pietrelcina, that being the town in which he was born.
On that model, if Pope Francis is canonised he could be St. Francis of Buenos Aires, the town in which he was born, or of Flores, the suburb.
On the other hand, St. Anthony of Padua is so called, not because he was born there (he was born in Lisbon) but because the most significant part of his ministry was spend there. Bl. Teresa of Calcutta is similarly named. On that precedent, Pope Francis could become St. Francis of Rome. (Except there’s already a St. Frances of Rome, and they might prefer to avoid confusion).
And of course there are other precedents - St. James the Greater vs. St James the Less, St John the Divine vs. St John the Baptist, etc.
Bottom line is that there are no hard-and-fast rules. Probably an identifier referring to the place of his birth is most likely.
He didn’t become Pio of Pietrelcina upon beatification, though: he was already called Father Pio of Pietrelcina by those who needed to distinguish him from other Father Pios - not in English since in English a Pio would go by Pius, but in Italian, Spanish…
The “distinguishing addendums” aren’t invented when the person in question is beatified, they are always pre-existing ones (Borja or Borgia was his lastname, the toponymics Assissi and Xavier had already been used to refer to those Francises while alive, etc.).
That wouldn’t make sense, as nobody calls him Francis Bergoglio now. I think the “Pope” part would be identifier enough (if another “St Francis, Pope” ever came along, the newer one would be getting numerals, so the identifiers remain unique).
Francis, being the first pope to take that name, does cause some confusion that others avoided. Hildebrand might have been called Gregory the Great, except that Pope Gregory I had already secured that title, so we now have Pope St. Gregory VII, instead. (Of course, if Francis is acclaimed “Great,” that would both follow precedent and avoid confusion. )
Which only makes sense. The only reason to add a number is to distinguish between several of the same name and is only necessary and only makes sense after there are two or more of the same name.
WWI only became WWI after there was a WWII.
Pope Francis will become Pope Francis I when there is another pope Francis. In the meanwhile there is no need to distinguish him from any other pope of the same name.
For the same reason there is no need to call king Juan Carlos of Spain “Juan Carlos I” although Spanish media often do it just because they are pretentious like that.
Right, taking an example from Californian geography: there is a “San Luis Rey” and a “San Luis Obispo” missions – “St. Louis, King” and “St. Louis, Bishop”, referring to two distinct figures. And notice there is no ordinal associated with the former even though he was IX in his particular succession. So if the current pontiff is canonized before there’s another of the same moniker, he becomes “San Francisco Papa”: “St. Francis, Pope”.
The scheduled April 2014 canonization ceremony will give us “St. John XXIII” and “Saint John Paul II”. There was some inkling of a campaing to make the latter “John Paul the Great” but I stopped hearing of that a while ago.
I agree that it doesn’t make sense, but the last pope who picked a new name used the number. Although maybe he was just clairvoyant and knew there would be a second one in 51 days.
I think he uses it officially too. I know it was on coins before the switch to the euro.
That might just be because he named himself after his two immediate predecessors, and wanted to make it clear that his name wasn’t a continuation of either’s line. In other words, he was John Paul I because he wasn’t John Paul XXIV or John Paul VII.
I did a little searching regarding king Juan Carlos. (A joke at the time of accession as that he would be “Juan Carlos the brief” because he was not expected to last long.)
He was proclaimed king of Spain as “Juan Carlos I” by the Parliament
I believe traditionally the kings of Spain never used numbers during their lifetimes even if there had been other kings of the same name previously.
The traditional formula for proclaiming lwas in Spain was something like
No need to even use the name as it was clear enough who it was and it was the office rather than the person. And the kings always signed “I, the King” and never used their names.
The Constitution of Spain starts with the traditional formula used to proclaim laws:
All regular laws are proclaimed:
So, yes, he uses it even though it is unnecessary and even though the odds are good that Spain will never again have another king Juan Carlos.
His first act as king was signed with the traditional “Yo el rey” but after that he has always signed as “Juan Carlos R.” (Juan Carlos Rey).
So, he does not use it in his signature but the documents refer to him with the (unnecessary) numeral.
It probably comes from a combination of ignorance and a desire to give the monarchy a patina of tradition and respectability.
And probably the reason why Pope Francis does not want to use it is humility.
)