What papal name will the new Pope choose?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I was never terribly enamored of 'John Paul' as a papal name anyway, though I understand the reasons for it, so I wouldn't want a John Paul III. I'd like to see some name that's lain fallow be revived. Urban, Innocent, Honorius, Julius, or maybe one of the (to modern ears) really odd ones from the first millennium.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I was never terribly enamored of 'John Paul' as a papal name anyway, though I understand the reasons for it, so I wouldn't want a John Paul III. I'd like to see some name that's lain fallow be revived. Urban, Innocent, Honorius, Julius, or maybe one of the (to modern ears) really odd ones from the first millennium.

Pope Zephyrinus II or Pope Soter II!

Yes! Or Lando, or Conon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He would be Lando II, of course.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would like to see a Pope Emanuel, though that might be considered sacrilegious.

I think it would, and for that matter Peter II probably would too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Incidentally, two questions: 1) does anyone know if the name a pope chooses has a broad or overall theme attached to its history? At this point probably not but maybe once upon a time, although I don't know, and 2) is there a reasoning process behind a pope choosing a name, or is it just personal? It probably depends upon a lot of factors, but I was wondering if there is any rule of thumb here.

I can't really answer the first question but the second depends upon the Pope. Benedict XVI was trying to evoke both Benedict XV, a somewhat withdrawn and highly intellectual pontiff--whose reign lasted eight years, incidentally, during and immediately after the first World War--and the original St Benedict of Nursia, the sixth-century founder of Catholic monasticism. Here's the Pope's own explanation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John XXIII had considerably more personal reasons (and I'm given to understand this quote is rather famous):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A website called papalartifacts.com says that Paul VI's name was 'an indication of his intention to spread the Gospel'. John Paul I took his name specifically in honor of his predecessors John XXIII, who had made him a bishop, and Paul VI, who had made him a cardinal. John Paul II took it partially because of the feeling that John Paul I's pontificate was rendered incomplete by his having died a month into it (although the John Pauls were actually very different men and theologians).

Pius XII's life and thought were strongly influenced by his predecessor Pius XI, and Pius XI's by his predecessor's predecessor St Pius X. St Pius X chose his name in solidarity with the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad lives of Pius VI (imprisoned by Napoleon), Pius VII (also imprisoned by Napoleon, then exiled), Pius VIII (had terrible health, was a puppet to one Giuseppe Cardinal Albani, and may or may not have been poisoned), and Pius IX (confined to the Vatican during the Unification of Italy). So most of the modern Piuses (Pii?) seem to have had some sort of affinity for their most recent predecessor of that name. They also appear to tend to be particularly devoted to Mary. The pope between St Pius X and Pius XI was Benedict XV, who had been the archbishop of the same see, Bologna, as Benedict XIV.

So, of the five most recent popes, Paul VI and Benedict XVI had theological and historical reasons, and John XXIII, John Paul I, and John Paul II had, to varying degrees, personal reasons.

*this is now considered incorrect, and the current list of Popes lacks a John XVI or a John XX. There was also no legit Benedict X.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I Take it popes no longer refer to themselves in the dual person thing?

Paul VI ceased usage of the royal 'we', yes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Excellent answer, Nathan - thank you. I think that actually answers the first question as well - the part of your answer regarding Pius, anyway. I do recall in 2005 on the news it being said that a previous pope named Benedict was a source of inspiration and influence on the then-newly selected Ratzinger, so I suspect that there are no real broad themes associated with the names, but perhaps limited themes over relative timespans that wouldn't be at all evident to a non-specialist in papal history. As well, anyone in a position to become pope is probably very aware of his predecessors' legacies, so the choosing of a papal name is likely personal on some level if not many.

Yes, I realized that that answered the first question to some extent as I was writing it. Recent Benedicts tend to be intellectuals or Bolognese or both, Pii tend to be associated with some sort of real or perceived political persecution (Pius XI and Pius XII were both involved with Nazi Germany in ways that have been characterized as everything from quietly heroic to unforgivably complicit depending on who you ask, and their reigns also saw anticlerical movements in the Soviet Union and (relatively) briefly Mexico and Spain), and Johns going back centuries and centuries often have or expect short reigns.

In theory, a new name is always possible through combining names in the manner of John Paul. There aren't that many names suitable for combining, though.

I'd been turning over John Pius (or Pius John, which in my opinion sounds better in Italian but worse in English) or John Leo in my head, actually. I doubt there would be much appetite for a John Benedict (or Benedict XVII, for that matter) already.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I have a sneaking suspicion he may choose an unprecedented name, and one generally regarded as sacred - Pope Peter the Roman.  There are a few reasons I believe this to be the case, but we'll have to wait until the conclave to find out for sure.

What kind of moronic excuse for a papabile would deliberately play into that [Inks]ing 'prophecy'?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

John Paul III: NO!

Pius XXIII: OMFG NO!

Naso I: Lol

I know the numbering of Johns is a little wonky, but would they really skip ten Pii at once?

(not a serious question, I know what you meant)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Wait, why are there two Obamanations?

I don't know, but the other Obamanation registered in late January. This Obamanation has been with us for a while.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"The Obamanation" and "Obamanation" are not the same phrase.

They're sufficiently similar to cause confusion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Prophecy was right about Pope Benedict XVI. (Glory of the Olive).

...the cardinal whom Ratzinger's widely considered to have prevailed over in the 2005 conclave was named Martini.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Prophecy was right about Pope Benedict XVI. (Glory of the Olive).

...the cardinal whom Ratzinger's widely considered to have prevailed over in the 2005 conclave was named Martini.

It's also worth noting that apparently, Benedict prefers Bertone has his successor.  We'll have to wait and see what the conclave gives us.  Of course, Bertone is the "Acting Pope" for lack of a better term right now, so idk if he would be chosen or even considered as the actual successor.

I would say that too many people hate Bertone, and with good reason.