Peter II

A reader writes:

Is there some lowercased tradition against a pope taking the name Peter? Some unspoken (or spoken) rule against it? Or does it seem people are just afraid to fill such shoes?

There is no spoken rule against it. If a pontiff-elect insisted, he could and would be called Peter.

But there’s a strong unspoken tradition against it. Any pope daring to call himself Peter would be regarded as extraordinarily presumptuous ("Who is this guy to hold himself up as the Successor of Successors–the only guy down through all the ages with the temerity to call himself ‘Peter’???"). It would be an extraordinary hamper to the pontiff’s ability to relate to his cardinals, the bishops, and the Church as a whole.

It also would be really asking for a lesson in humbling from God.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

28 thoughts on “Peter II”

  1. Not sure where I heard this, but I seem to recall some legend that the last pope before the end of the world would be named Peter II. Has anyone else ever heard this?
    Naturally, if the story is true, I really hope the next pope doesn’t choose the name Peter! 🙂

  2. A “seer and mystic” in Australia made some statements about Popes John Paul II and Peter II back in May 2004. The “moderator” of the website explained:

    “Pope Peter II will be the only true and legitimic successor of Pope John-Paul II. Pope Peter II will be the last Pope ever. He will bring the flock of the true faithful, the Remnant-Church, to the New Earth.”

    Another visionary in Australia, the “Little Pebble,” received this from our Lady:

    THIS FALSE POPE – WHO WILL COME AFTER THE REIGN OF OUR BELOVED VICAR, POPE JOHN PAUL II – WILL BE THE ANTI-POPE OF HISTORY.
    I have told you about him and his reign through many places throughout the world. However, dear children, when this false pastor reigns in My Son’s House the true followers of My Divine Son will be in hiding. Just the same as the first Christians hid in the Catacombs, so will the future Christians; but know, My dear children, a great and Holy Vicar will be in hiding, Pope Peter II, while the anti-pope reigns on the Seat of Peter. This Pope, Peter II, will be the last Pope of all history – and he will lead the Church in its dark age and dark time; in its final moments of the history of mankind. This history will soon unfold before your eyes, so watch and be careful.

    What is it with Australian mystics? (Cue spooky digiridoo music and fade to Gregorian chant.)
    (thanks to Google search on Pope Peter II!)
    Maybe the next Pope should take Peter II just to discredit all these mystics?

  3. Hal Lindsey on World Net Daily has decided that the next pope named Peter will be the ruin of the world. He uses St.Malachy’s prophecy to say that there will be a pope named Peter and then ignores the part about this pope feeding his flock through many tribulations.

  4. The baptismal name of John XIV in the very late 10th century was Peter, but he chose another name out of respect for the Prince of the Apostles. Within a generation, all subsequent pontiffs followed suit and took regnal names rather than using their own names which had been the practice (barring a handful of exceptions) to that point. So, the likelihood of any future Pope breaking with a tradition over a millenium old is astronomically small.

  5. Not sure where I heard this, but I seem to recall some legend that the last pope before the end of the world would be named Peter II. Has anyone else ever heard this?
    Naturally, if the story is true, I really hope the next pope doesn’t choose the name Peter! 🙂

    Why in the world (pun intended)do you desire to postpone the Parousia?
    Personally, I don’t think it would be presumptuous for a Pope to Partake the name Peter. It would clearly be a tribute and not a statement that he was extraordinary. I think the truer reason that no one has taken the name is not out of respect for Peter but of Christ. Afterall, Christ designated Simon, “Peter” he did not “take” the name.
    What about a name like “John Paul” that included Peter? (e.g. Pope Peter Paul) Think he would have a devotion to Mary? 🙂

  6. I know infallibility prevents bad men from changing doctrine, but I would like to know if the infallibility of the Church prevents the office of pope from being led by the anti-christ? I don’t know, but I *HOPE* it does! I find it puzzling to think that Jesus would prevent the gates of hell from prevailing, but allow the Man of Sin to run the church?

  7. Any pontiff in the near future who takes the name Peter II would be making a serious mistake, not because of any possible end-of-the-world scenario or implied arrogance; but because a vast number of evangelical Christians and an even larger number of superstitious types would be convinced he was, indeed, the anti-Christ.

  8. There have been Patriarchs of other Apostolic Sees named Peter, but the only occupant of THE Apostolic See named Peter is the Apostle himself. As mentioned above, there is an unspoken rule that Popes shouldn’t take that name, and there’s the prophecy of St. Malachy which names the last Pope “Petrus Romanus.” For so many reasons, we just won’t see a Pope Peter II — not any time soon, anyway.

  9. There have been Patriarchs of other Apostolic Sees named Peter, but the only occupant of THE Apostolic See named Peter is the Apostle himself. As mentioned above, there is an unspoken rule that Popes shouldn’t take that name, and there’s the prophecy of St. Malachy which names the last Pope “Petrus Romanus.” For so many reasons, we just won’t see a Pope Peter II — not any time soon, anyway.

  10. All this is IRRELEVANT. The next pope will be named Francis. Who will keep his own name. Even. Now, everybody, back to work.

  11. Yes, I’ve heard of the Hal Lindsey article — made me depressed and scared all day today.
    2 more popes before the end. The next pope will be “the pope of the olives,” whatever that means. After him, it’s Peter II, who will usher in The End of the World. *Shivers*

  13. I guarantee it won’t be “Frances”! Cardinal Arinze is much more masculine than that!

  14. I can’t remember the name of the book, but there is a collection of the prophesies of Saint Columkill, an Irish patron-saint, enumerating the contents of various visions and predictions that he had while in meditation. One of the eschatological-type visions involved the “last Pope,” who Columkill predicted would take the name Peter.

  15. well, if you like this kind of thing, there are supposedly only two niches left in the grotto for papal burials; JP2 was supposed to take one of them, meaning only one more could fit, and then, end of time reign. but J23 got moved, so now we room for two more popes after all. whew. that was close.

  16. There was a prophecy associated with St. Paul Outside the Walls. When they ran out of room for the papal medallions which run the entire circumference of the Church, the end of the world would come. The medallions are where we get the images for the “Pope Chart”. I remember seeing the church in 1973. The tour guide pointed out there were (I think) only six blank spaces left, and mentioned they were planning a building project soon. 🙂

  17. I don’t see how it would be presumptuous to take the name of Peter. Isn’t the purpose of taking the name of a predecessor in order to honor them, and indicate that you want to somehow take their Pontificate as your model (eg, John Paul II wanted to continue the work begun by John XXIII and Paul VI).
    Perhaps “Pope Simon” could do that without the baggage of the name “Peter”.

  18. “I guarantee it won’t be Frances! Cardinal Arinze is much more masculine than that!”
    C’mon, cut me some slack. Let’s see how well you spell while simultaneously nursing a baby and taking morning vitamins!

  19. C’mon, cut me some slack. Let’s see how well you spell while simultaneously nursing a baby and taking morning vitamins!
    Hey, I was just having a little fun. Besides, there are a lot of dissidents out there with crazy notions (in this case, a female pope). I’m sure Frances Kissling, for one, would love to be pope! 🙂

  20. What about a name like “John Paul” that included Peter? (e.g. Pope Peter Paul) Think he would have a devotion to Mary? 🙂

    Chocolate covered coconut, more likely! 😀

  21. IT WOULD BE QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A POPE PETER 11, SINCE THERE WAS NEVER A POPE PETER. THE NOTION THAT PETER, THE APOSTLE OF CHRIST, WAS THE FIRST POPE IS SUPPORTED NEITHER BY HISTORY NOR BY SCRIPTURE.
    IF YOU VISIT ST. PETER’S BASILICA IN ROME AND GO STAND UNDER MICHELANGELO’S CUPOLA, YOU WILL SEE THE PART OF A VERSE FROM MATTHEW 16 HIGH ABOVE YOU IN LATIN. IT SAYS: TU ES PETRUS ET SUPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM, WHICH IN ENGLISH IS, “YOU ARE PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”, FROM WHICH CATHOLIC TEACHING HAS CONCLUDED THAT PETER IS THE ROCK UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE. THE LATIN VERSE IS TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK ORIGINAL, AND UNFORTUNATELY, DOES NOT GIVE THE WHOLE VERSE, NOR THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT INCIDENT.
    CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE GREAT FOUNDATION STONE UPON WHICH HE BUILT HIS CHURCH, AS THE CONTEXT OF MATTHEW 16 MAKES PERFECTLY CLEAR.
    I WILL PUBLISH A BOOK ON THIS SUBJECT SHORTLY, WITH A CD OR TWO ALONG WITH IT, IN WHICH I WILL DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY WHY THE GREEK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT PERMIT THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE PAPACY HAS LONG ATTEMPTED TO TWIST OUT OF THIS OTHERWISE QUITE CLEAR NEW TESTAMENT TEXT.
    NEIL CAMERON

  22. So Peter is’nt the first leader of the Christian Faith, you say?
    Look here:
    [url]http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/peter1.html[/url]

  23. Thank you for taking the trouble to write COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH ANNOY THE EYES AND ARE SUBSEQUENTLY HARDER TO READ.

  24. Neil Cameron: Don’t forget that Jesus and His Apostles spoke Aramaic, and the Greek New Testament that we have is a translation of Jesus’ words from the original Aramaic. Make sure that you understand the original Aramaic words that Matthew translated into Greek as “petros” and “petra”.
    (And try to it without shouting this time).

  25. Neil Cameron: You don’t really think you’re going to come up with something the Church hasn’t already faced and doesn’t have a logical answer to, do you?

  26. I thought that there was only one Aramaic word for “rock”, cephas, and it would have been used for both what gets translated petros (Peter) and petra ([large] rock).
    The difference in Greek words is because Jesus meant a large rock, but the word for a large rock is feminine in Greek so when translating the name Cephas to Greek they had to use the closest masculine equivalent, which means small rock.
    But in Aramaic Jesus just said “You are Rock [cephas] and on and on this rock [cephas] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    I admit I get this knowledge secondhand, from a Catholic biblical scholar, I do not know Aramaic or Greek myself.

  27. Note that Paul repeatedly refers to Peter as “Cephas” because rather than translating, he transliterated. (Check what “Cephas” means, next.)

Comments are closed.