I was going through a trunk I have in which I have put many things from my more distant past. In the bottom were newpapers I have kept from 1978, the year of Pope Paul VI’s death and funeral, Papa Luciani’s election, death and funeral, and the election and installation of Pope John Paul II.
Our Sunday Visitor, 9-10-78 edition, was completely about Papa Luciani’s election. In the opinion column, they addressed whether he should be called John Paul or John Paul I, arguing that the former is correct despite the Vatican’s assertion of latter. The comment at the end is amusing, as it shows how OSV got something very wrong too!
Here is the quote:
“Everyone is getting it wrong. Even at the Vatican. The new Pope is not Pope John Paul the First. He is simply Pope John Paul.
Since it has been more than a thousand years since we’ve had the experience of a pope who chose an entirely new name, it is understandable there should be some confusion.
But in his lifetime no pope can ever be called the first, that designation is added only after his reign if another pope chooses the same name. There might one day be a Pope John Paul II. When a pope chooses that name, and not before, the first Pope John Paul becomes Pope John Paul I.
Just to make it clear by an example in common life, you cannot refer to John Smith as John Smith, Sr., until there is a John Smith, Jr.
So in the Church it is not Pope Peter I who was the first pope but, because no other chose his name, it remains simply Peter. So also speaking of popes of the past we speak of Pope Linus, Pope Anacletus and Pope Evaristus with no numerical designation because no other popes chose these names. But their successor we refer to as Pope Alexander I because in the year of 1061, 946 years after the death of Pope Alexander, Anselmo da Baggio, chose the name of Alexander. In doing so he became Pope Alexander I.
Since everyone has started off wrong, calling him Pope John Paul I, it will take awhile to get it straightened out. We admit to some schizophrenia on the question in this issue. But it really is true that our new Pope can be referred to properly only as Pope John Paul, that designation of the first is not proper until some distant date when someone else chooses the same name.”
How wrong OSV was! Someone did choose the same name a month later, not in some distant future. Fortunately, OSV does not tell popes what their name will be. Only the pope himself decides that, and it is my understanding Albino Luciani said he name would be John Paul the First.
You know what? I think Papa Luciani knew Karol Wojtyla was soon to be elected.
Hi Bob, thanks for this great comment on “our” Pope.
I don’t know whether John Paul I chose to add the “I” for a particular purpose. But there is information on which we can speculate:
According to an Italian book called “I segreti del Vaticano” by Italian “Vaticanologist” Benny Lai, when it came time to choose his name, John Paul I was flanked by the premier cardinal priest, cardinal deacon and cardinal bishop in the college of cardinals. One of these (I can’t remember which) was Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, who had been Luciani’s main rival for votes in the conclave.
When the new pope said “I will call myself John Paul,” Siri put in “John Paul I?” and Papa Luciani repeated it “John Paul I.” And it is that way that Cardinal Felici made the announcement from the balcony of St. Peter’s. I should note that Lai was a friend of Cardinal Siri’s and even wrote a biography of him, so it’s a safe bet this came directly from the cardinal.
Also, the next morning in his first Angelus address, the new Pope said that he had told the cardinals “I will call myself John Paul” — without the number. I don’t think the number had a lot of importance to him in the beginning.
But then, maybe a couple weeks later, according to John Paul I’s secretary, Father (later Bishop) Magee, the new Pope one day received a letter from a professor telling him it was wrong to add the Roman numeral after his name until there was a John Paul II. And the Pope told Magee, “write to him and tell him there will be a John Paul II soon enough.” So even if he didn’t adopt the number for a particular reason, he did know that he wouldn’t be there that long; and there are also indications he thought Cardinal Wojtyla would be his successor, but it would take a long time to go into those. So there you are!
I love reading newspaper clippings from long ago, and am delighted to hear that you have some. I have a great many for John Paul I as well.
Hi Lori,
If I am not mistaken, when Luciani signed his name after his papal election, he included the “I”. Is that your understanding?
Yes, it’s in all his signatures that I’ve seen. Whether he signed his act of election that way, I don’t know. Is that what you’re referring to?
It would be interesting to see his signature on the act of his election. I haven’t been able to access/locate it.
I thought of checking the Acta Apostolica Sedis, which I downloaded from the Vatican web site, but it doesn’t have the act of election signed by the Pope, though it does have the documents signed by those who sealed the conclave, etc. On p. 690, the commentary (evidently not an official document) says that when asked for his name by Cardinal Villot, he said “Vocabor Iohannes Paulus.”
Well, all fascinating to speculate about. I am really glad that you are writing about your experience with Papa Luciani and can’t wit for you to finish it.