Pope “Peter I”
Pope Dope
Pope Giggerota (Lexx reference)
Pope Antipope
Pope Controversial
Pope Abortion
Pope Lucifer
The first thing I thought of was Rufus, the 13th Apostle.
Even if a Pope were to take the name Jesus, he wouldn’t be Jesus II. The big JC was never Pope.
It’s not that big a deal in the sub continent or SE Asia or C Asia. It gets subsumed into general “religious wars”.
Pope Linus II or Pope Cletus II, the names of the second & third Popes respectively. There would be an awful lot of snickering the the US and maybe Canada.
I really have been surprised at how not controversial Francis has been. Francis wasn’t just some dude who helped the poor and preached to birds. He was a radical, he was a mystic, he was insane–he wasn’t even a priest: just a crazy man wandering the countryside encouraging people to leave all their possessions. His movement was made official because it was too powerful to ignore–if things had gone a little differently, he might well have been burned for heresy.
Francis changed everything. He brought the church out into the world. He redefined “Christian”. Francis is up there with Gregory I and Martin Luther in terms of transforming the church as an institution.
Even the poverty thing has been misunderstood. Francis didn’t work to end poverty, he worked to extend it. He saw wealth as the root of all evil, and he embraced utter poverty as a blessing. He encouraged people to literally give up all possessions, to not know where they would sleep each night or where their next meal was coming from.
There are other names that connote humility and service. Gregory would have been good, actually: it suggests a continuation of those values in what is now a millennia-old tradition. Francis is more. Francis is change and rebirth. Francis as a name is a very big deal.
That said, in the spirit of the thread, my vote is Pope Martin Luther. That would not have gone over well at all.
Pius XII stuff is overblown. I could see it being used again. And which Alexander are you talking about? The last one, VIII, who was a nepotist and maybe a little corrupt, but mostly unknown. Or the way more famous one, Pope Alexander “Jeremy Irons” VI, who was very infamously scummy and is denigrated by the Church to this day. Because following VIII, I don’t think that necessarily means tacit approval. Rodrigo de Borja, on the other hand, tough act to follow…
Judas - I’m not sure. The Gospel of Luke has Judas the son of James, a different guy, and maybe the same as Thaddeus in the other Gospels. You might know him better as Saint Jude though, and that name might be more likely.
Pope Judas’ official motto could be “Age, Mihi Crede” (Google translate, don’t blame me if wrong).
The SF novel series Hyperion features a eternal Pope who chooses Urban XVI to signify his new Crusade against metahumans.
Imagine if Francis came out and said that no, he’s not named after that Francis, but really Francis Xavier. The nutters would have a field day. As it is, I really cannot wait for Jack Chick’s next offering!
Really? This is totally different from my experience studying History in Pakistan from 1977-1984. The crusades were a big fucking deal and covered in great indignant detail.
And judging by the reaction of my Facebook friends from the old country when Bush the Lesser used the C word to describe the war on terror a few years ago, the fire of resentment still burns quite hot in many hearts. So at least in one part of South Asia, the one you are presumably most familiar with, you could not be more wrong.
Well, that and it’s a mistake to think that those involved in the Crusade were only in the Middle East. Depending on the Crusade, several Mongol Khanates were involved (I think on both sides but often allied with the Crusaders, at least until the Islamization of some Khanates).
I also don’t know how Indonesians would feel, but I’ll bet some might be miffed.
No, definitely not only in the Middle East. One was quite a bit closer to home (meaning Rome). The Albigensian Crusade was a brutal military campaign against the Cathars in France.
Peter ll
Pope Priapus. Hey, it sounds right, and almost nobody will get it.
Sure, and a bunch more in Europe, like the Livonian, Prussian, etc. And the Children’s Crusade, if you count that. And one I just learned about, the Norwegian Crusade, with M-F-ing vikings in the holy land/Mediterranean! 
But what I really meant is that it wasn’t like people to the east of the Middle East were ignorant about the goings-on. Western Europe certainly knew, and the Byzantines (Fourth Crusade was a cock-up, mostly between those two).
I like Pope Silenus. Even more obscure, and we could pick a doper to increase the SDMB’s visibility… no wait, don’t think we want that. Although… the Pope would effectively raise the dead, with so many new zombie threads.
It’s from the sequel series, Endymion. And yes, that’s where I got the idea from.
Whomever the first black pope is, he should definitely not choose Urban.
And you don’t think it’s about bloody time? It hasn’t been very long since the earthquake of Vatican II but hey, things go a lot faster now than they used to. The comment I’ve heard most often has been “let’s hope he shakes things up” - what people disagree about is what direction is the correct one.
+1 on the Peter thing; Jesus is just unthinkable*. Thadeus would produce rolleyes and dubious looks (the name comes from St Judas Thadeus - there were two Apostles named Judas), but the public side of the ruckus would be greater among his enemies than within the Church itself.
- The Hispanic custom has to do with the notion of the person for whom you’re named being called upon to protect you. The Pope’s regnal name is more of an “I’m going to try and be like the person whose name I’m choosing”. Calling upon God to protect your child is perfectly normal; saying that you wanna be Godlike is long-sleeved shirt material, but only because the “quarter, burn and hang” procedures have fallen out of fashion.
I think** Pope Cunt Muncher** would be about as controversial as you could get.
Go really weird and obscure: Pope Formosus II.
- Mary
- Stan
- Hi Popal.
Total hooey. King John’s notorious reputation in no way stopped his descendants from using his name, and on several occasions England came VERY close to having a John II.
Edward I, John’s grandson, named his firstborn son John. The child died young in 1271.
Edward II’s second son was John of Eltham (he also died as a young man).
Edward III’s third surviving son was John of Gaunt.
Henry IV’s third son was John, duke of Bedford.
The name dropped out of popularity in the Yorkist and then Tudor dynasties, and was rarely used thereafter. This happens sometimes; royal names come in and out of favor for various reasons. You might as well wonder why no monarch of England has named their son Humphrey for a few centuries. There’s no reason to think that John’s descendants purposefully avoided the name due to his reputation.