Pope names
Jan. 12th, 2006 05:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yrmencynToday I'm catching up on some of my magazine reading, which in my case means, basically, TIME. At the end of every issue, TIME has an op/ed page, where one of their contributors (or occasionally a guest author) will voice hir opinions on whatever s/he feels like commenting on. In the Jan9 issue, David Van Biema talks about the recent revamping of the concept of limbo by the Catholic Church. This is actually a rather important doctrinal change, and I'm happy about it, but that's not really what I want to write about.
I want to write about nomenclature. We all realize that, like many other monarchs, popes don't go by their real names, right? Pope John Paul II, for example, began his life as Karol Wojtyła. It's not a secret -- it's pretty easy to find real names for the modern popes, and not too hard for most other -- it's just that once they're elevated to the Chair of Peter they take on a new identity. I think it's intriguing, then, that Pope Benedict XVI doesn't often receive this relabelling courtesy. In this article, Van Biema refers to Benedict XVI by his reign name once, but the rest of the time he's Joseph Ratzinger. Now, to be fair in many cases he's talking about publications and statement made before his election to the pontificate, so it wouldn't be quite correct, in scholarly terms, to refer to him as Benedict XVI, since he wasn't at the time. Van Biema, however, doesn't even employ the then- convention (i.e." then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger"), he just whizzes blithely on.
It must be hard to follow up JP2. I'm not saying this in a moral or doctrinal way, but simply with an eye toward public awareness. Karol Wojtyła became John Paul II in 1978, and his papacy lasted for almost 27 years. In contrast, John XXIII reigned less than 5 years. Paul XVI reigned a quite lengthy 15 years. JP2's immediate successor, JP1, reigned only 33 days before he died. For many people (me included), John Paul II wasn't a pope, he was the pope. And I think that that's the issue at hand. Writers feel like they have to remind their readers that there's a new pope, remember, that guy who used to be Joseph Ratzinger? Very strange. I'm not a big fan of Benedict, but I do hope that before he dies off we manage to get to a point where we can just call him by his reign name and not have to refer back to (then-)Cardinal Ratzinger
I want to write about nomenclature. We all realize that, like many other monarchs, popes don't go by their real names, right? Pope John Paul II, for example, began his life as Karol Wojtyła. It's not a secret -- it's pretty easy to find real names for the modern popes, and not too hard for most other -- it's just that once they're elevated to the Chair of Peter they take on a new identity. I think it's intriguing, then, that Pope Benedict XVI doesn't often receive this relabelling courtesy. In this article, Van Biema refers to Benedict XVI by his reign name once, but the rest of the time he's Joseph Ratzinger. Now, to be fair in many cases he's talking about publications and statement made before his election to the pontificate, so it wouldn't be quite correct, in scholarly terms, to refer to him as Benedict XVI, since he wasn't at the time. Van Biema, however, doesn't even employ the then- convention (i.e." then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger"), he just whizzes blithely on.
It must be hard to follow up JP2. I'm not saying this in a moral or doctrinal way, but simply with an eye toward public awareness. Karol Wojtyła became John Paul II in 1978, and his papacy lasted for almost 27 years. In contrast, John XXIII reigned less than 5 years. Paul XVI reigned a quite lengthy 15 years. JP2's immediate successor, JP1, reigned only 33 days before he died. For many people (me included), John Paul II wasn't a pope, he was the pope. And I think that that's the issue at hand. Writers feel like they have to remind their readers that there's a new pope, remember, that guy who used to be Joseph Ratzinger? Very strange. I'm not a big fan of Benedict, but I do hope that before he dies off we manage to get to a point where we can just call him by his reign name and not have to refer back to (then-)Cardinal Ratzinger
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 02:48 am (UTC)Second, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is correct. At its base, "Cardinal" is a title of peership, thus it should preced the inherited title name. Since the Catholic church doesn't use inheritance for titles, the title name reverts to the family name, hence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. A good comparison would be Alfred Lord Tennyson, the first Baron Tennyson. Did that make any sense? 'Cardinal' follows the form of generic titles like 'Lord'.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 01:53 am (UTC)Third, I believe you're right about John Paul II being the pope, but I also think it might have to do with the nature of the media now. I'm sure there were stories before JP2 became pope talking about who was being considered, but I think it was probably MUCH more pervasive this time around. Especially since JP2 was so sick and everyone knew he was going to die soon. Because of that, Ratzinger had a lot more media time before becoming pope than I think JP2 probably did. Although it really doesn't explain why it's so hard for the media to accept him as pope now. This is all speculation, anyway. Just what popped into my mind as I read this.