Very good stuff. One thing to add: Leo named now St. John Henry Newman, a convert to Catholicism who had been under some suspicion during the Pius IX, as a cardinal. Leo referred to him as “my cardinal.” One would have to investigate how much Leo’s openness to Scripture scholarship
Incomplete sentence in footnote 2: "too many American Catholics view the Church’s pastors through the lens of their own partisan preferences rather than"
(FWIW, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on the topic you say is too big to address now. During the reigns of both B16 and Francis, there were those who discovered the beauty of obedience and submission *while the pope was on their side* (or they thought he was), and observing this left me feeling rather cynical about the whole idea.)
I sympathize with much of that article—MAGA Catholicism is indeed deranged and hypocritical—but there are countervailing considerations it doesn't address. Some of the controversial events in Pope Francis' reign seemed calculated to *invite* the sort of confusion and disorder that they in fact produced.
Re: "Leo XIII lived to the age of 93, the oldest pope ever..."
I'm mildly surprised that you didn't add a footnote to the effect that Benedict XVI was 95 when he died -- but of course, that was nine years after he resigned!
Understanding that “Peter” would never likely be used, but is there a particular reason why the other Apostles (besides John and Paul) haven’t been used?
It’s a very good question. A key part of the answer is this: Pope Paul I and Pope John I both used their baptismal names! This established the precedent for Paul II (the first pope to take a regnal name, as he considered his baptismal name, Mercurio, unsuitably pagan) and—much, much later, John II (whose baptismal name, Peter, was unsuitable for the opposite reason!).
No other pope prior to the regular adoption of regnal names happened to have the baptismal name of an apostle, so that precedent was never set for any other apostolic name. And regnal names, once they became common, followed the precedents set by the baptismal names of prior popes. (Yes, Pius I and Innocent I were their baptismal names!)
If I recall correctly, John Paul I was the first pope to take a “new” papal name in something like a millennium—and he did it by combining the well-established names of his predecessors. That made Francis the first completely new papal name in over a millennium.
Of course another iconoclastic pope could always choose to take the name James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, or Matthew. But the short answer to the reason “Why has no pope ever done it until now?” is “No pope baptized by those names reigned by them when that was common, so there was no precedent, and no pope until Francis has ever taken an entirely new papal name.”
Interesting point! As much as I love and value traditions, I think it would be an amazing catechetical opportunity to take one of these names as a way to emphasize something about the spirit of there apostolic work (if known) that could guide the church.
Or maybe it’s just because I think Pope Bartholomew would be an amazing name…maybe because his feast day is my birthday… :)
Very good stuff. One thing to add: Leo named now St. John Henry Newman, a convert to Catholicism who had been under some suspicion during the Pius IX, as a cardinal. Leo referred to him as “my cardinal.” One would have to investigate how much Leo’s openness to Scripture scholarship
…and modern scholarship in general was influenced by Newman, who was markedly interested in both.
It’s quite possible that Newman, named a cardinal by Leo 13, will be named a Doctor of the Church by Leo 14!
Incomplete sentence in footnote 2: "too many American Catholics view the Church’s pastors through the lens of their own partisan preferences rather than"
(FWIW, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on the topic you say is too big to address now. During the reigns of both B16 and Francis, there were those who discovered the beauty of obedience and submission *while the pope was on their side* (or they thought he was), and observing this left me feeling rather cynical about the whole idea.)
Thanks for the catch P, fixed!
Are you familiar with Mike Lewis at Where Peter Is?
https://wherepeteris.com/when-the-scales-fell-from-our-conservative-catholic-eyes
I sympathize with much of that article—MAGA Catholicism is indeed deranged and hypocritical—but there are countervailing considerations it doesn't address. Some of the controversial events in Pope Francis' reign seemed calculated to *invite* the sort of confusion and disorder that they in fact produced.
Thank you for writing this and sharing the video. It was quite insightful.
So good to hear! Thanks very much.
Re: "Leo XIII lived to the age of 93, the oldest pope ever..."
I'm mildly surprised that you didn't add a footnote to the effect that Benedict XVI was 95 when he died -- but of course, that was nine years after he resigned!
Good point! I’ve added a footnote to this effect with a hat tip to you.
Understanding that “Peter” would never likely be used, but is there a particular reason why the other Apostles (besides John and Paul) haven’t been used?
It’s a very good question. A key part of the answer is this: Pope Paul I and Pope John I both used their baptismal names! This established the precedent for Paul II (the first pope to take a regnal name, as he considered his baptismal name, Mercurio, unsuitably pagan) and—much, much later, John II (whose baptismal name, Peter, was unsuitable for the opposite reason!).
No other pope prior to the regular adoption of regnal names happened to have the baptismal name of an apostle, so that precedent was never set for any other apostolic name. And regnal names, once they became common, followed the precedents set by the baptismal names of prior popes. (Yes, Pius I and Innocent I were their baptismal names!)
If I recall correctly, John Paul I was the first pope to take a “new” papal name in something like a millennium—and he did it by combining the well-established names of his predecessors. That made Francis the first completely new papal name in over a millennium.
Of course another iconoclastic pope could always choose to take the name James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, or Matthew. But the short answer to the reason “Why has no pope ever done it until now?” is “No pope baptized by those names reigned by them when that was common, so there was no precedent, and no pope until Francis has ever taken an entirely new papal name.”
Interesting point! As much as I love and value traditions, I think it would be an amazing catechetical opportunity to take one of these names as a way to emphasize something about the spirit of there apostolic work (if known) that could guide the church.
Or maybe it’s just because I think Pope Bartholomew would be an amazing name…maybe because his feast day is my birthday… :)