While reading James White‘s responses to Karl Keating’s August 23rd e-letter, I came across a strange assertion in White’s follow-up "Even When I’m Wrong, I’m Never Wrong"-response. Setting aside the question of the merits of White’s critique of the e-letter, since that boxing ring is already occupied, let’s look at White’s defense for his error in calling Benedict XVI by the name of Boniface:
"I notice a few folks out there who are extremely excited and happy that when I quickly put together a response to Karl Keating on his ridiculous attack upon John MacArthur that twice I referred to Pope Boniface instead of Pope Benedict. Ignoring the substance of what I wrote and focusing solely upon mixing two artificial names (shall we just call him Joseph Ratzinger and stop the pretension of the Papacy and its naming policy?), some have jumped on this as if it has some kind of meaning."
Setting aside also the question of whether White should have thrown together an off-the-cuff response or should have more carefully considered the issue before offering a careful and measured response (or offered no response at all if he didn’t have such time to spare for the matter), let’s look at the claim that there is something "pretentious" or "fake" about popes taking new names.
The practice of a pope choosing a new name is an ancient one, stretching back to John II, who reigned in the sixth century and felt that his given name of Mercurius (derived from the pagan god, Mercury) was inappropriate for a Christian leader. We could even cite biblical support for the practice if we note that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (cf. John 1:42). While this doesn’t directly support a pope choosing his own new name, it does show that taking on a new name is not antithetical to Christian piety or theology.
In modern times popes have often chosen their new names in order to honor loved ones, to demonstrate solidarity with predecessors, or to indicate the direction and goals of their pontificate. Thus, John XXIII chose his father’s name; John Paul I and John Paul II chose to honor predecessors and indicate continuity with them; and Benedict XVI explicitly stated that his name honored both the patron saint of Europe and a peacemaker pope, which indicated his own goals.
This isn’t simply a Catholic phenomenon. When Edward VIII abdicated the throne of England in 1936, his younger brother Albert succeeded him to the throne. The abdication had caused a great scandal in Britain, causing many to wonder about the future of the monarchy. In order to calm such fears and to demonstrate the continuity of the British monarchy, Albert chose to take his father’s name and be crowned King George VI. His choice was still fresh in the minds of royal protocol experts years later when his daughter Elizabeth succeeded him. Asked by her advisers what name she would be known by as queen, the new monarch is said to have responded "My own, of course."
My guess is that James White is not entirely ignorant of the history of papal names. Unlike sensationalistic anti-Catholics like Jack Chick, Dr. White shows some familiarity with the actual teachings of Catholicism. My guess is that he once again threw together a response without thinking through the claims he was making in the course of that response. He was likely more interested in dismissing criticism of his original sloppiness than in critiquing a Catholic custom. In short, he was more interested in proving himself right than in serving truth.
UPDATE: Karl Keating has published his own response to James White in his August 30 e-letter.
I’m a Catholic, and I like the custom of popes taking new names…
But James White could see it as pretention by the Popes because in Scripture, name changes are usually bestowed by God …
Then he must really have a problem with baptismal names.
Don’t you mean confirmation names?
For what it’s worth, Prince Charles has apparently decided to be titled George VII upon his taking of the throne.
I ought to challenge him to a debate on what the Pope’s name is.
Then he must really have a problem with baptismal names. – Maureen
Don’t you mean confirmation names? – Edward
You are probably thinking, Edward, of people baptized as infants. Not everyone is, though.
Many converts to Christianity take a “Christian” name (usually a saint’s name) at their baptisms. For example, Black Elk (best known for the books Black Elk Speaks and The Sacred Pipe) took the name “Nicholas” at baptism (he was baptized on Dec. 6) and was subsequently known to both the Church and his own people as “Nick Black Elk.”
St. Matthias Feng De, likewise, took the name “Matthias” at baptism. Before that he was simply Feng De.
Name changes are also common in the Far East. Masters in their art will take a special swordsman name, an origami name, an ikebana name, a tea ceremony name, a scholar name, etc. This is a tradition that continues to this day and is an indication, I think, of how the Church carries signs of its geographic origin: the part of the globe that is neither East nor West.
Catholics are the only Westerners I know who use oriental mannerisms like bowing as a part of everyday life. In this way, the Church acts as a sort of cultural conduit between the East and the West. Personally, I take it as a sign of the inherent universality of the Church.
I think something like this could benefit from some closer study caus’in it’ cool.
Catholics are the only Westerners I know who use oriental mannerisms like bowing as a part of everyday life. In this way, the Church acts as a sort of cultural conduit between the East and the West. Personally, I take it as a sign of the inherent universality of the Church.
Ever read any John (Ching-hsiung) Wu?
I’ve gotten it wrong the other way and mistakenly said the Christmas tree came about behind St. Benedict instead of Boniface/Wilifred. doh.
I also could not help but notice that James White neglects to put any direct links to sites that would disagree with his high holy opinion. The only links in his article are to his own website!
What is he afraid of? He probably got a few thousand extra hits from this Catholic site thanks to the links provided here.
I also cannot help but notice there is no comment box on his blog, either. Kinda funny how evangelicals will go on and on with dark stories of the Church squashing free exchanges of ideas while indulging in proof-texting the Bible for their preconceived doctrinal inventions.
I am reading that old apologetic work of Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Keating right now. It is a very good read that critically reveals evangelical double-speak for the twisted standard it is. It also is well researched. How can White accuse Keating of not providing point-by-point proof when he wrote the definitive answer book almost two decades ago?
I guess when it comes to definitive doctrine, James White is both Alpha and Omega.
But he’s no pope!
James White should ask what is the significance of his name? If it’s nothing to him, then he took himself away from the Scripture which held often times the names of the prophets as an expression of their spiritual undertakings.
A newly elected Pope realized a different era of his spiritual life as a servant of God. Such new name is an expression of his dedication as the churhcleader. An unbeliever like James White can’t see it.