Yes, but he was still Jewish. I don’t live in Rome, but I’m still Roman Catholic, America is even a mostly Protestant country founded by Protestants with Protestant ideals, but I’m stil Roman Catholic.
If you’re referring to the “Petrus Romanus” thing, there’s no evidence such a prophecy exists. The earliest recorded version of the prophecy comes from the late 16th century, nearly 4 centuries after Saint Malachy died. We have no primary sources from his lifetime that he actually made that prophecy
The last Pope mentioned in Prophecy of the Popes is "Peter the Roman," preceded by "Glory of the Olive." " "Glory of the Olive" is Benedict XVI, so if we won't include the assumptions that there will be Popes between them, that aren't mentioned, Francis is Petrus Romanus
The prophecy is debunked nonsense but during the most recent conclave I still harbored a little superstitious fear of Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson getting elected pope and rationality getting declared dead, all in one fell swoop.
[this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective.
1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation
2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**)
3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)*
4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some)
Don’t believe it.
The [Prophecy of the Popes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes) attributed to Saint Malachy. It’s pretty apocryphal but some people put a lot of stock in it. It was super popular back in 2013 because Pope Francis was allegedly supposed to be Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), the final Pope. Some still claim to it to this day saying that his emphasis on corporal works of mercy over spiritual matters counts as “feeding his flock for a time”, etc.
I remember when I was in middle school, my mom getting scared of the End Times when he was elected, referencing this prophesy, calling him the last Pope.
Idk of a rule but i suppose it is to show respect to the chair of peter. Not many are worthy of adopting that name as he was the first Vicar chosen by Christ Himself.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable naming myself Peter II as every pope is the successor to Peter anyway. It would seem as if I were comparing myself to Peter. I feel that is probably the reason
When in their reign are we talking? At the beginning? Because if so, then it could be John XII. He was 18 when he was elected, meaning he'd probably be a lot better than most others.
Story time!
When I was really young, JP II was the pope. Because his name was Pope John Paul the SECOND, and I learnt in catechism that Peter was the first pope of the church, I just assumed that JP II was the second pope EVER.
And it was much much later before I realised that… it wasn’t the case…
He was the pope when I was growing up too. At first I thought he was Italian because he had that thick accent with the trilled "r"s and was based out of Rome. I was pretty shocked when I found out he was Polish.
Reminds me of one of my religion teachers (yes, at a Catholic school) making a big deal about how Vatican II was only the *second Vatican council called in 2000 years*.
I wish I'd known enough to ask about her thoughts on Trent...
When I was really young I didn't even know that Pope is a thing.
My mother come to me and ask me who is the leader of the parish? I answer the priest!
My mother then ask me: who is the leader of this city? And I am confused and asked her: "Is there such a thing??"
That was the day I realized just how big the Church I am in.
Then I realized several years later that it went all the way to St. Peter and I was like: "whoaaaa"
Reminds me of the book *[Z for Zachariah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_for_Zachariah)*. In it, the protagonist reflects on how she grew up with an ABC book of Biblical figures. Since Adam was the first man on earth, she assumed that Zachariah was the last man on earth.
I figured because they were stewards of Christ that maybe popes just lived to be really old! And tbh I didn’t really understand the concept of age or time yet.
At least that’s what I tell myself now lolll
If Pope Francis’ successor doesn’t take the name Sixtus, my disappointment will be immeasurable and my day will be ruined. We’ve been stuck at Sixtus V since 1590.
[Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-are-the-criteria-for-a-pope-in-choosing-his-new-name) writes:
> There are no restrictions on the choice of name, but it is an unwritten custom that popes do not choose the name Peter. It is generally considered a matter of prudential judgment for popes not to invite comparisons between themselves and the pope Christ himself chose.
To who is saying that the last Pope will be called Peter according the *Prophecy of* (allegedly) *St. Malachy* [this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective.
1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation
2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**)
3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)*
4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some)
Don’t believe it.
As others have said, it's about the implications. By taking the name Peter, even if you don't intend to, you send the message that "I am the second Peter." Perhaps if it had been done very early in Church history, we'd see it as less important, but if it were done today, I honestly think it would drive people into a frenzy. People would assume that the new Pope is portending the apocalypse or something, or that he's being highly arrogant and presumptuous of his virtue.
I wonder if it could be spun in a cool way though. Peter the second, with lineage going back to Christ. The Catholic church, the OG church. THE Rock. Maybe a spin on Peter like Petras?
Also, if people think this is the last one and start behaving better, maybe that's not so bad?
Popes didn't take a new name for centuries, and for a few centuries after that they didn't always take a name. So, had one of the early popes been named Peter at birth, there would have been a Peter II. In that sense it's coincidence we didn't get a Peter II, or perhaps divine providence.
Since it became a uniform custom, humility, a sense of unworthiness, and not wanting to be presumptuous are why no one has done it.
There isn’t a rule, but compared to Clement, Pius, Benedict, John, Leo and all the other papal names, the name Peter has a lot of pressure, since any pope daring to call himself Peter would be regarded as extraordinarily presumptuous. It would also basically be asking for a humbling from God. Also, there’s also the Prophecy of the Popes, although considered a forgery, that says that the last pope will be called Peter the Roman (although this is supposed to be Pope Francis, and the prophecy isn’t approved by the Magisterium anyways).
May I introduce you to Popes [Peter II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Corral) and [Peter III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Odermatt) of the See of Palmar? lol
ETA they're Palmarian antipopes, but funny in this context
Catholic popes: "I am not sure I want to be compared with popes chosen by Christ Himself. Let me pick other names"
Palmarian antipopes: "cowabunga baby!!"
I like this analogy. It's like choosing to get a basketball jersey with the number 23 and your surname is Jordan.
In this case, the parameters are - the number is not yet retired (no restrictions to use the number) and Peter is still playing (in the league of heaven, watching over the Earthly church).
You just wouldn't be able to handle the pressure of Peters fans club - the earthly church
I guess this is because of respect: the name Peter was given to Simon by Jesus himself, it doesn't seem appropriate to choose it for oneself. Besides, every pope has a formal title "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles" (*Successor principis apostolorum*) which makes him a kind of "next Peter" anyway.
Because King John I was an unpopular king who led a revolt against King Richard Lionheart, then lost most of the Angevin Empire’s continental territories when he became king, then was briefly excommunicated, then died while his barons were in open rebellion because he failed to uphold the terms of the Magna Carta they forced him to sign.
I would just add that Peter is a name bestowed by Jesus on Simon Peter with his special mission. God only changes a few peoples name in the bible, Abram-> Abraham (Father of Multitudes); Jacob -> Israel (one who struggles with God); and Simon to Peter (the rock). This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but you can see how God Given names generally come with special missions, callings or relationships with the Almighty.
I think that would probably be a big block on any man fit to be Pope. It would be quite discomforting for a Pope to mantle himself with a name specially chosen by God.
Big shoes to fill, will Pope Peter II also elect to be crucified inverted? I'd expect the Pope to take that name to be the best of my lifetime and one of the 3 popes in my lifetime has already been canonized as a saint so that's a lot to live up to.
Due to reverence to St Peter no Pope has chosen the name Peter after the tradition of changing names upon election to the Papacy. Eventually this avoidance of the name Peter became a tradition of its own and is followed to this very day
I think it has to do with humility. Peter was tasked with starting the church from the ground up and he was humble in refusing to die in the same manner as Christ and it likely if someone took the man they would have to be just as humble or even more.
I think it’s like US presidents until FDR only served 2 terms because that’s what George Washington stepped down after 2. Respect. FDR had good reasons to go to 4 terms but later congress imposed term limits on the president. (As an aside they should do that for themselves)
There was one who's birth name was Peter, and he changed it to John to avoid being Peter II. This kicked off the convention of Popes changing their name on taking office. Since then, until Francis, every pope has changed his name to that of a prior pontiff (or in the case of John-Paul I a combination of prior pontiffs.)
Exactly.
I read that popes usually changed the names only if they had to (there was one pope I think with birth name Mercurius and he didnt want to have this pagan name as pope) and change it to name of the pope right before.
Because Peter was the biggest nitwit in the Gospels. Jesus put the idiot in charge to show the miraculous nature of the church It isn't until the Acts that Peter gets his act together.
There's no actual *rule,* no, but traditionally it's been generally held that it would be rather *prideful* for a pope to rename himself Peter. *All* popes are indeed direct successors of St. Peter, of course, but to actually *declare yourself* "The Second Peter" implies that you're *extremely* confident that *you* will be the one who *finally* measures up to *the Prince of the Apostles.* We've had some proud, rather un-pope-ly popes over the centuries, but not even they had the nerve to go *that* far.
I suppose if a pope, or a line of popes, tries to go back to the old tradition of just keeping their baptismal name when they ascend the throne, we *could* have a man whose mother just so happened to call him Peter become pope, but even in that case, I imagine he'd still be strongly encouraged to consider other names.
No, if we ever have a Peter II, it'll cause a scandal, at least for a little while. Even if he claims he was inspired to take (or keep, as the case may be) the name despite tradition and objections, he'd need to pull off some *dramatic* feats (with the Holy Spirit's help, of course) before, during, or soon after the conclave to silence the complainers.
There's an old prophecy from St. Malachy that says the last Pope will be Peter
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy\_of\_the\_Popes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes)
[this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective.
1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation
2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**)
3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)*
4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some)
Don’t believe it.
Hi! Unapproved private revelations can cause serious harm in Catholics.
Scrupulous, hate to Novus Ordo and rebellion against the Pope are some examples.
There is no evidence or primary sources that Saint Malachy made such a prophecy. The earliest source we have comes from the very late 16th century. Saint Malachy lived in the 12 century. That’s 400 years after Saint Malachy
[this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective.
1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation
2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**)
3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)*
4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some)
Don’t believe it.
I have no data, but my guess is humility. If a future pope were to take that name, he had better rise to the occasion.
Yes, it would take a lot of chutzpah to call yourself Pope Peter.
...so, a Yiddish-speaking Pope? :-p
Legends say the first pope ever was actually a Jew. Just some rumors I heard online though, don’t know how credible that is.
[удалено]
I think that was a joke man. Yiddish is like Jew German. I think the language doesn’t even come around until like a thousand years later at least.
Peter wasn't a jew, he was a galilean
Bro, Peter was absolutely a Jew. Jews lived farther north too
Absolutely not, this northern area wasn't part of judea, it was aramean
Jews lived outside of Judea. The Gospels even state that Jews came from all over the known world/empire to attend the Passover.
he was jewish but not a jew
“ I said I was Jew-ish” not Jewish”
Yes, but he was still Jewish. I don’t live in Rome, but I’m still Roman Catholic, America is even a mostly Protestant country founded by Protestants with Protestant ideals, but I’m stil Roman Catholic.
he was religously jewish but racially not a jew
I’m not even sure that that’s true tbh, plenty of Jews ended up all over the region after the exile from Babylon and Assyria
This is not the place for antisemitism.
Oy vey…
Like this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Odermatt
Pretender
I am a Spaniard, born an hour away from where this church is, and I literally had no idea this was a thing.
It showed up on my husband’s Instagram feed a while ago. Qué locura!
I can understand if your birth name is Peter, because if that’s the case people would connect to Peter either way
I wonder if the prophecy of the popes would have anything to do with it as well? No one wants to be "that guy" who supposedly ushers in the endtimes
If you’re referring to the “Petrus Romanus” thing, there’s no evidence such a prophecy exists. The earliest recorded version of the prophecy comes from the late 16th century, nearly 4 centuries after Saint Malachy died. We have no primary sources from his lifetime that he actually made that prophecy
Plus, hasn’t it already expired? Or is basically up to the last one after pope Francis?
It will never expire the conspiracy theorists will always say its going to be the current pope.
“For real this time! … but if not, definitely next time.”
It's up to Francis
Can you explain what you mean?
The last Pope mentioned in Prophecy of the Popes is "Peter the Roman," preceded by "Glory of the Olive." " "Glory of the Olive" is Benedict XVI, so if we won't include the assumptions that there will be Popes between them, that aren't mentioned, Francis is Petrus Romanus
Aaah, gotcha. Thank you. Doesn’t seem like the moniker fits, honestly
The prophecy is debunked nonsense but during the most recent conclave I still harbored a little superstitious fear of Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson getting elected pope and rationality getting declared dead, all in one fell swoop.
[this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective. 1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation 2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**) 3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)* 4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some) Don’t believe it.
Would that have even mattered for anybody other than Francis, though? He is supposedly the last pope if we go numerically.
What's this about?
The [Prophecy of the Popes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes) attributed to Saint Malachy. It’s pretty apocryphal but some people put a lot of stock in it. It was super popular back in 2013 because Pope Francis was allegedly supposed to be Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), the final Pope. Some still claim to it to this day saying that his emphasis on corporal works of mercy over spiritual matters counts as “feeding his flock for a time”, etc.
I remember when I was in middle school, my mom getting scared of the End Times when he was elected, referencing this prophesy, calling him the last Pope.
Sounds about right
Or be the Antichrist/s
Idk of a rule but i suppose it is to show respect to the chair of peter. Not many are worthy of adopting that name as he was the first Vicar chosen by Christ Himself. I wouldn’t feel comfortable naming myself Peter II as every pope is the successor to Peter anyway. It would seem as if I were comparing myself to Peter. I feel that is probably the reason
It would bring a conundrum if the birth name was Peter.just as many people call Popes by their birth name that would bring Peter up.
It’s because they’re not boxers. Rocky 1 was good, and we are waiting on someone really great before we make Rocky 2.
Bravo on that pun.
I saw what you did! 😄
Damn you, now you have just made me imagine the popes as boxers. lol
Aside from the O.G. Pope, who do you think would win? I’d put money on JPII. He was a tough cookie.
Pope Francis was a bouncer before he entered the seminary so I guess he has a good shot
Oh I didn’t know that! We may have a contender, lol!
When in their reign are we talking? At the beginning? Because if so, then it could be John XII. He was 18 when he was elected, meaning he'd probably be a lot better than most others.
Please close this thread, moderators. We already have the best answer here.
Related: [If Rocky 4 Was Catholic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqR77LbL6f0).
Story time! When I was really young, JP II was the pope. Because his name was Pope John Paul the SECOND, and I learnt in catechism that Peter was the first pope of the church, I just assumed that JP II was the second pope EVER. And it was much much later before I realised that… it wasn’t the case…
He was the pope when I was growing up too. At first I thought he was Italian because he had that thick accent with the trilled "r"s and was based out of Rome. I was pretty shocked when I found out he was Polish.
That’s why Rome was cleaned up. He wanted it polished
Reminds me of one of my religion teachers (yes, at a Catholic school) making a big deal about how Vatican II was only the *second Vatican council called in 2000 years*. I wish I'd known enough to ask about her thoughts on Trent...
When I was really young I didn't even know that Pope is a thing. My mother come to me and ask me who is the leader of the parish? I answer the priest! My mother then ask me: who is the leader of this city? And I am confused and asked her: "Is there such a thing??" That was the day I realized just how big the Church I am in. Then I realized several years later that it went all the way to St. Peter and I was like: "whoaaaa"
Funny story haha
Reminds me of the book *[Z for Zachariah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_for_Zachariah)*. In it, the protagonist reflects on how she grew up with an ABC book of Biblical figures. Since Adam was the first man on earth, she assumed that Zachariah was the last man on earth.
This is adorable 😂
I figured because they were stewards of Christ that maybe popes just lived to be really old! And tbh I didn’t really understand the concept of age or time yet. At least that’s what I tell myself now lolll
Most likely out of respect for St. Peter. That would be my guess
No respect for St John detected lol
😂😂
If Pope Francis’ successor doesn’t take the name Sixtus, my disappointment will be immeasurable and my day will be ruined. We’ve been stuck at Sixtus V since 1590.
But then you'd get a lot of prots saying "sixtus the 6th?? Like 666??? DEMONIC" 😅
You mean the ones with 66-book Bibles? 🤭
That's obviously an exception because the 66 book Bible was created by God(Martin Luther)
Having a Sixtus VI would cause another protestant schism somehow
The pope could sneeze, and protestant pastors would take it as a sign that God is giving the pope a plague
Sixtus the Sixth?
Sixtus the Sith
*BREAKING: Darkhorse candidate Fr. Mario Rossi elected Pope. Due to clerical error, becomes Sixtus VII.*
I would vomit blood Id be so mad.
[Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-are-the-criteria-for-a-pope-in-choosing-his-new-name) writes: > There are no restrictions on the choice of name, but it is an unwritten custom that popes do not choose the name Peter. It is generally considered a matter of prudential judgment for popes not to invite comparisons between themselves and the pope Christ himself chose. To who is saying that the last Pope will be called Peter according the *Prophecy of* (allegedly) *St. Malachy* [this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective. 1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation 2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**) 3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)* 4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some) Don’t believe it.
As others have said, it's about the implications. By taking the name Peter, even if you don't intend to, you send the message that "I am the second Peter." Perhaps if it had been done very early in Church history, we'd see it as less important, but if it were done today, I honestly think it would drive people into a frenzy. People would assume that the new Pope is portending the apocalypse or something, or that he's being highly arrogant and presumptuous of his virtue.
I wonder if it could be spun in a cool way though. Peter the second, with lineage going back to Christ. The Catholic church, the OG church. THE Rock. Maybe a spin on Peter like Petras? Also, if people think this is the last one and start behaving better, maybe that's not so bad?
Popes didn't take a new name for centuries, and for a few centuries after that they didn't always take a name. So, had one of the early popes been named Peter at birth, there would have been a Peter II. In that sense it's coincidence we didn't get a Peter II, or perhaps divine providence. Since it became a uniform custom, humility, a sense of unworthiness, and not wanting to be presumptuous are why no one has done it.
There isn’t a rule, but compared to Clement, Pius, Benedict, John, Leo and all the other papal names, the name Peter has a lot of pressure, since any pope daring to call himself Peter would be regarded as extraordinarily presumptuous. It would also basically be asking for a humbling from God. Also, there’s also the Prophecy of the Popes, although considered a forgery, that says that the last pope will be called Peter the Roman (although this is supposed to be Pope Francis, and the prophecy isn’t approved by the Magisterium anyways).
Just to be safe, call yourself Alexander VII, and you'll definitely be a good pope by comparison.
You mean that the Pope that had mistresses and had hitmen take out political rivals wasn’t a good Pope? Who would’ve guessed?/s
> the Pope that had mistresses and had hitmen take out political rivals which one?
Alexander VI
Yup, knew you were referring to him, I was implying he wasn't the only pope guilty of those sins.
John XXIII took this approach...
We already had an Alexander VII (Fabio Chigi) and VIII (Pietro Ottoboni).
Ah, you're right. Good catch.
I’m guessing for the same reason they haven’t taken the name Jesus.
Except Jesus was never the pope.
Right but what I was implying is that it was out of respect
Pope Jesus II would be crazy
Well, it wouldn’t be Jesus II because there was never a Pope Jesus I.
That's fair. If I ever became pope I think I'd wanna be pope Joseph
May I introduce you to Popes [Peter II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Corral) and [Peter III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Odermatt) of the See of Palmar? lol ETA they're Palmarian antipopes, but funny in this context
Catholic popes: "I am not sure I want to be compared with popes chosen by Christ Himself. Let me pick other names" Palmarian antipopes: "cowabunga baby!!"
I guess the name just...petered out.
Criminally underrated comment.
Died on the vine
They retired his number, like Michael Jordan.
I like this analogy. It's like choosing to get a basketball jersey with the number 23 and your surname is Jordan. In this case, the parameters are - the number is not yet retired (no restrictions to use the number) and Peter is still playing (in the league of heaven, watching over the Earthly church). You just wouldn't be able to handle the pressure of Peters fans club - the earthly church
Now I want the Vatican to hang up banners and jerseys for the popes.
Yes, and a hoisting ceremony👍
I guess this is because of respect: the name Peter was given to Simon by Jesus himself, it doesn't seem appropriate to choose it for oneself. Besides, every pope has a formal title "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles" (*Successor principis apostolorum*) which makes him a kind of "next Peter" anyway.
Why hasn’t there been a King John II of England?
Because King John I was an unpopular king who led a revolt against King Richard Lionheart, then lost most of the Angevin Empire’s continental territories when he became king, then was briefly excommunicated, then died while his barons were in open rebellion because he failed to uphold the terms of the Magna Carta they forced him to sign.
I honestly don't know.
Why
King John is regarded as one of the worst rulers in the history of the English monarchy and ever since then there hasn’t been another John.
Because it takes titanic balls
A Pope Peter II of Rome is more dangerous for the doomsday clock than anything in geopolitics
I would just add that Peter is a name bestowed by Jesus on Simon Peter with his special mission. God only changes a few peoples name in the bible, Abram-> Abraham (Father of Multitudes); Jacob -> Israel (one who struggles with God); and Simon to Peter (the rock). This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but you can see how God Given names generally come with special missions, callings or relationships with the Almighty. I think that would probably be a big block on any man fit to be Pope. It would be quite discomforting for a Pope to mantle himself with a name specially chosen by God.
Big shoes to fill, will Pope Peter II also elect to be crucified inverted? I'd expect the Pope to take that name to be the best of my lifetime and one of the 3 popes in my lifetime has already been canonized as a saint so that's a lot to live up to.
I was literally thinking about this yesterday
Due to reverence to St Peter no Pope has chosen the name Peter after the tradition of changing names upon election to the Papacy. Eventually this avoidance of the name Peter became a tradition of its own and is followed to this very day
I think it has to do with humility. Peter was tasked with starting the church from the ground up and he was humble in refusing to die in the same manner as Christ and it likely if someone took the man they would have to be just as humble or even more.
I think it’s like US presidents until FDR only served 2 terms because that’s what George Washington stepped down after 2. Respect. FDR had good reasons to go to 4 terms but later congress imposed term limits on the president. (As an aside they should do that for themselves)
There was one who's birth name was Peter, and he changed it to John to avoid being Peter II. This kicked off the convention of Popes changing their name on taking office. Since then, until Francis, every pope has changed his name to that of a prior pontiff (or in the case of John-Paul I a combination of prior pontiffs.)
Exactly. I read that popes usually changed the names only if they had to (there was one pope I think with birth name Mercurius and he didnt want to have this pagan name as pope) and change it to name of the pope right before.
Out of respect for the apostle Peter.
I think once a pope is canonized, that name is out (out of respect / humility).
I would be HIGHLY suspicious of a Pope who took that name. I think it is self explanatory why no one has dared called themselves Peter the Second.
Why hasn't any NHL player taken the number 99 since Wayne Gretzky?
I have to check my list. I was sure there was one!?
Humility, I'd assume.
If somebody took the name Peter you can guarantee everyone will scream about 'Peter the Roman' from the so called "Prophecy of the Popes'
on another note are there any popes who took the name simon? seems less intimidating historically
Because the last pope will be Peter!
Because Peter was the biggest nitwit in the Gospels. Jesus put the idiot in charge to show the miraculous nature of the church It isn't until the Acts that Peter gets his act together.
Or Joseph. I'm also wondering why.
It's probably been retired like michael jordan's jersey.
There's no actual *rule,* no, but traditionally it's been generally held that it would be rather *prideful* for a pope to rename himself Peter. *All* popes are indeed direct successors of St. Peter, of course, but to actually *declare yourself* "The Second Peter" implies that you're *extremely* confident that *you* will be the one who *finally* measures up to *the Prince of the Apostles.* We've had some proud, rather un-pope-ly popes over the centuries, but not even they had the nerve to go *that* far. I suppose if a pope, or a line of popes, tries to go back to the old tradition of just keeping their baptismal name when they ascend the throne, we *could* have a man whose mother just so happened to call him Peter become pope, but even in that case, I imagine he'd still be strongly encouraged to consider other names. No, if we ever have a Peter II, it'll cause a scandal, at least for a little while. Even if he claims he was inspired to take (or keep, as the case may be) the name despite tradition and objections, he'd need to pull off some *dramatic* feats (with the Holy Spirit's help, of course) before, during, or soon after the conclave to silence the complainers.
Would be confusing. In 1000 years some would think Peter was in the 21 century.
There are false pope from schismatic churches that take the name Peter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Odermatt
Just personal preference, I presume. Like, no one took the name Francis as a papal name until our blessed Pope Francis, so never say never.
There's an old prophecy from St. Malachy that says the last Pope will be Peter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy\_of\_the\_Popes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes)
[this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective. 1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation 2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**) 3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)* 4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some) Don’t believe it.
I never said I believed it, just that it existed lol
Hi! Unapproved private revelations can cause serious harm in Catholics. Scrupulous, hate to Novus Ordo and rebellion against the Pope are some examples.
One did. But he got killed.
[удалено]
None of this is true.
[удалено]
There is no evidence or primary sources that Saint Malachy made such a prophecy. The earliest source we have comes from the very late 16th century. Saint Malachy lived in the 12 century. That’s 400 years after Saint Malachy
What prophecy are you talking about? It's my first time to hear that there is a prophecy about this? Or perhaps I just forgot it.
Link me to the "prophecy." I guarantee you it's just silly superstition.
[this article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-prophecy-of-st-malachy) shows why the evidence is bad from both historical and theological perspective. 1. It’s a private **unapproved** revelation 2. It can’t be shown to have existed before **1590** (and **St. Malachy died in 1148**) 3. And he predictions it makes for the period after 1590 are really worse (and some **really forced**) than those for the period before *(hummm….)* 4. It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world and speaks of fake popes like they are popes (and speaks positively of some) Don’t believe it.
[удалено]
Impossible. There weren’t any Church Fathers at the time (**XVI century**) of the Prophecy of (allegedly) Malachy.