PopeWatch: Pope John XXIV?





Well this is intriguing:



On a day when everyone is recalling Pope Benedict XVI’s historic — and stunning — announcement last Feb. 11 that he intended to resign the papacy comes a fascinating revelation from the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict: Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who reportedly ran second to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in that conclave, later told a fellow cardinal that if he had been elected then he would have taken the name “John” after Pope John XXIII. Instead, Bergoglio was elected in March of last year two weeks after Benedict resigned and became the first pope named after Francis of Assisi. “Good Pope John,” as John XXIII is known, also stunned the church and the world by calling the Second Vatican Council that in the 1960s introduced numerous reforms and ushered Roman Catholicism into the modern world. “John, I would have called myself John, like the Good Pope; I would have been completely inspired by him,” Bergoglio told Cardinal Francesco Marchisano, according to a new book by longtime Italian Vaticanista Gianluca Barile. –

Go here to Religion News Service to read the rest.  Pope Francis plans to canonize Pope John and Pope John Paul II on April 27, 2014. Divine Mercy Sunday.  Pope Francis has waived the traditional requirement of a second miracle, doing so based on his assessment of the merits of Pope John for calling the Vatican II council.

More to explorer


  1. Unsavory to me. I don’t like reading revelations about how many people voted for who, and that Cardinal Bergolia waved off his supporters (in the interest of shortening the conclave_ ) Unsettling. Makes the whole thing unsavory and political just like his waiving the miracle standard, which has been respected; but not by this pope who doe not seem humble to me at all. His opinion is more highly regarded by him and frankly he doesn’t seem well thought out ( I am still upset about “who am I to judge?”)

  2. There are a couple of points I would make here.

    First, in direct response to the actual post, it does not surprise me, if it is indeed accurate, that Pope Francis once thought of taking John XXIV as his name. While some in (and outside the communion) of the Catholic Church do not ‘like’ “Good Pope John”, I dare say you would have a very hard time finding a cardinal entering a papal conclave who did not like etc Blessed John XXIII. Heading off some comments already, I need to say it is not because they are “company men” or “politically correct” so that they would never say anything against Blessed John. They are Cardinals of the Catholic Church in the era after the Second Vatican Council. One would not expect or want a Cardinal for example who did not like the reforms of the Council of Trent and/or Pope Saint Pius V in the years following both.

    As for the conclave itself, we all need to remember, by the very ‘rules’ set up for the election of a pope, that votes etc are taken. If we read Acts 1 and the ‘election’ of Matthias to fill the necessary number of The Twelve to replace Judas, you notice that they set up the parameters of what should be the ‘requirements’ of the office and then go about the selection process: in that case ‘casting lots’. We are always speaking of a human process within a Divine-human [Incarnational Principle] institution, the Church. None other than Pope Benedict himself has emphasized that the Holy Spirit is involved in an election of a pope only to the extent to guarantee that the pope elected does not ‘take the Church off the tracks’. There have been bad popes, perhaps even some are in hell [Dante certainly thought so, although I think he picked on Pope St. Celestine unfairly and ended up very wrong about him]. I strongly suggest any up for really learning an accurate, faith filled yet very realistic version of all the popes up to and including Pope Benedict, Eamon Duffy’s “Saints and Sinners”. However it is not ‘pious reading’

    It is important to note that, as of now, both Pope Francis and Pope emeritus, Benedict will be co-canonizing Blessed John XXIII and Blessed John Paul II. It will be a first having two popes canonized together but also (obviously) a first having two popes doing the canonization.

    It is also important to note that while the (whole) process of canonization is a canonical process-which means it can always be tweeked, changed etc., the actual act of canonization is an exercise of papal infallibility. In a canonization the pope, by being the successor of Saint Peter declares that such and such a saint is indeed in heaven, to be honored, prayed to [not worshipped!] and imitated.

    As for actual changes in the process of canonization: it was Pope Benedict who waived the five year waiting period for the canonization process to begin for John Paul II. And as for the waiving of the second miracle for the canonization of John XXIII, again this is not the first time. John Paul II did this at least one time-in the canonization of now Saint Juan Diego (Guadalupe)

    If we are honest with ourselves, not every canonized saint is our cup of tea. If we are honest we all have favorites and those we do not think that much of-if at all. Most canonizations go by and only the country and or religious order connected with the saint get excited. However there are those canonizations, such as these two popes that guarantee a lot of media coverage, a great deal of ‘talk’ and varying interpretations and feelings. For all those not excited (to put it mildly) about the canonization of Pope John XXIII, there are those Catholics who believe Pope John Paul hijacked Vatican II and its interpretation and are unhappy he is being canonized.

    As many commentators have pointed out, among them Fr Z himself, this dual canonization is not only exalting two holy men, but also giving the whole Church a certain message. Vatican II was a movement of the Spirit, an historical and important ecclesial moment that cannot and will not be ‘repealed’ [canonization of John XXIII] Its authentic interpretation was that which John Paul II greatly assisted in, assisted by the future Benedict XV-thus ‘the spirit of VII crowd’ are out of luck. With the canonization of both saints, the hermeneutic of renewal and continuity is also being canonized. April will be a major, major event in the history of the Church

  3. Botolph, Why in your opinion is there such urgency to rush the canonization of both popes and why waive the procedural requirements?

  4. Slainte,

    I would not necessarily say John XXIII is being ‘rushed’ (except of course if you count the second miracle-it is important to note that in most of our life-times it used to be three miracles-) As for Pope Benedict’s decision to waive the five year waiting period before beginning the preliminary examination/preparations for canonization of Pope John Paul II, I believe the vox fidelium [voice of the faithful] at the time of John Paul II’s funeral were a significant factor

    Something like this is not unheard of in the Church. I believe that the Church believed and wanted to canonize (Saint) Francis Xavier before it had even canonized Saint Ignatius of Loyola. The Jesuits said, that really doesn’ t make any sense, to canonize a disciple but not the actual founder. So both were canonized together by Pope Gregory XV on March 12, 1622

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: