Posted on 04/05/2005 2:58:49 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
;-)
So I checked and found out: Hundreds of years ago this tradition started, but it is not actually required. The story is that the tradition of taking new names dates to A.D. 533, when a priest named Mercury was selected. Wanting a more Catholic-sounding moniker, he changed his name to John.
Ever since then, the new popes have done the same, but it is not a requirement. So, who knows what the next pope might be called, he could keep his own name.
Sorry but Leo XIV would be a bad choice.
Leos are generally strong popes who come after periods of trouble who set things right. (from a Catholic perspective) Leo would have been a good name for John Paul II except that John Paul II was better than most of the Leos. Except for Leo X, the Leos not listed were very short-lived:
St. Leo I the Great (440-461) - On the religious side, settled the Nestorian and Pelagian controversies. On the secular side, he personally convinced Atilla the Hun to leave Italy.
St. Leo II (682-683) - Consecration was delayed by wrangling away from payments demanded by Constantinople, finalized settlement of Monothelite controversy.
St. Leo III (795-816) - Crowned Charlemagne
St. Leo IV (847-855) - Detroyed the threat of the Saracens who had previously sacked Rome.
St. Leo IX (1049-1054) - The major reformer who brought the church out of two centuries of chaos and debauchery.
Leo XIII (1878-1903) - Provided stability in the church and reestablished relations with Germany after the loss of the Papal States under his predecessor.
So, what Church did Christ build on Peter? The context of Matthew 16 speaks of the Kingdom which has keys (this would be the Davidic Kingdom, not a Roman treasure house in the Vatican. In Matthew 16, Peter tried to prevent the very act of redemption that would be the salvation of sinners and Jesus called him "SATAN." Peter and the apostles had been preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew ch. 10; Luke chs. 9, 10)in association with the prophesies of the Millennial Kingdom in Isaiah ch. 35. They did not even understand the Gospel of the Grace of God or the purpose of the Death, Burial or Resurrection of Jesus Christ during our Lord's earthly ministry, which is clear from reading Luke 18:31-34 along with Matthew 16:21ff. Some rock upon which to build the NT Church, this Peter.
So who is obligated to respect custom. There is no command of our Lord in Scripture to perpetuate this kind of thing, nor any obligation on our part to respect it. Knowing CHRIST, that is all. All true believers in Christ are AMBASSADORS for Christ (2 Corinthians ch. 5), so every true believer is a "vicar" of Christ. All believers are kings and priests (1 PETER 2:5; Revelation 1:6).
I dare say that while John Paul II did much good, there is so much more to set right. A Pope Leo XIV could end the American schism; revitalize the priesthood; and reconcile the Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches. (Could the Glory of the Olives be a peacemaker among the Christian schisms?) We certainly do live in troubled times for the church.
(Not only that, but a Pope Arinze would do well with taking the name of Leo.)
P.S. Is it wrong to habd out campaign literature for Arinze at the Vatican?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.