Pope begins reign with massive blunder

I refer to the designation "the first".

The Emperor Nero is not known to history as "Nero the first". Why not? Because there hasn't been a second one, and so the number is not needed.
King John of England is not known to history as "John the first". Why not? Because there hasn't been a second one, and so the number is not needed.
I have an inherited school History book, where the Tudor Queen Elizabeth is not called "Elizabeth the first". Why not? Because at the time of publication, there had not been a second one, and so the number was not needed.

Do you see a pattern developing? The convention is that names only need to be numbered when they're being used more than once.
If there is ever a second Pope of that name, this one would become "Francis the first" retrospectively.
Until then,a plain "Pope Francis" would have been the correct usage.

If there is ever a second Pope called Francis, naming this one Francis 1 will eliminate future confusion.
I do see your point but don't find it really matters if Francis adds the 1 to his name.

reply to post by Beartracker16

It matters to pedants.
All right, so it's half a tongue-in-cheek rant.
I did hold back from suggesting that he belonged in one of the deeper circles of Dante's Inferno, along with the idiots who invented the phrase "King-mother" (because they misunderstood the meaning of "Queen-mother") when Princess Diana was alive.

It's an attempt to plant the subliminal thought that they'll be around long enough for a second.
Which just tells me that they know they are doomed.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Beartracker16

 

It matters to pedants.
All right, so it's half a tongue-in-cheek rant.
I did hold back from suggesting that he belonged in one of the deeper circles of Dante's Inferno, along with the idiots who invented the phrase "King-mother" (because they misunderstood the meaning of "Queen-mother") when Princess Diana was alive.

Maybe they were trying to be hip, it actually sounds alright outside of royal titles. Actually you're right to hold back on the Jesuit side of it, since you know he would be the first.

reply to post by DISRAELI
But his real name wasn't Francis, was it?
I thought his previous name had been Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

At this time, it does not matter what the next Pope's current name is. They can pick any name they want, and rename him Pope Francis II. And if he doesn't want to change his name, then he won't become the next Pope. They'll just find someone who is willing to become Pope Francis II.








reply to post by Planet teleX

Originally posted by Planet teleX

It's an attempt to plant the subliminal thought that they'll be around long enough for a second.
Which just tells me that they know they are doomed.

Huh?

reply to post by BrokenCircles

It's simple. Due to the current controversies they are undergoing they are in a state of damage control. By using the designation 'the first' they can boost a little confidence in their followers by reassuring them of the churches continuity. It's a message and obviously taken from a marketing playbook.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Maybe it's the press who's adding the numeral. When he was introduced, he was introduced as Francis.

reply to post by Planet teleX

Originally posted by Planet teleX

It's simple. Due to the current controversies they are undergoing they are in a state of damage control. By using the designation 'the first' they can boost a little confidence in their followers by reassuring them of the churches continuity. It's a message and obviously taken from a marketing playbook.

They've been successfully profiting off of the Christianity racket for 2000 years. That's not going to stop anytime soon.

reply to post by aboutface

No, I don't think it's the press.
I watched the announcement live and heard the name given as "Francisco primo", so it sounds like it was actually announced in that form.

PS I've been putting the mistake down to ignorance rather than conspiracy theory- but what if "the first" is a deliberate smack in the face to those who thought he would be the last?

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

Maybe it's the press who's adding the numeral. When he was introduced, he was introduced as Francis.

I have only seen one reference to Francis I, that was the Telegraph, London.
There has also been clarification,
"On the day of his election, (today that is) the Vatican clarified that his official papal name was Francis, not "Francis I." A Vatican spokesman said that the name would become Francis I if and when there is a Francis II"
I did also see one twitter post, with the same objection as the OP.

reply to post by smurfy

Thank you for that update.
It sounds as though the inclusion of "first" in the announcement was a bit of unpremeditated "off-the-cuff" thinking, and they've had second thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by smurfy

 

Thank you for that update.
It sounds as though the inclusion of "first" in the announcement was a bit of unpremeditated "off-the-cuff" thinking, and they've had second thoughts on the subject.

Well frankly, and to be truthful IMHO, nobody is going to talk about the new Pope with an added number, except in retrospect. He will have his own share of controversy, should it be hokem or not, and all the politics that go with the job.
What I do admire is the faith of people in Jesus Christ as we or I only know him as given, and that as a true humanitarian, I don't give a toss if he is not the son of God, I don't look for a second coming, or a Messiah, we don't have the ability to comprehend all that jazz, we do though have the capability for empathy, something day and daily, attempted to being destroyed by government and legalities in their real ignorance.

yesterday was the 13/03/2013 in AU and for the first time ever I actually looked at the date and mathematically, I said, it was a significant date, but nothing happened here yesterday until I logged in and saw that the new pope has been chosen on this day. In the northern hemisphere it is the 13th.

it is a sad day for me because I despise the corrupt organisation. How blasphemous that they should even think that any one of them would be 'christs regent' on Earth.

the organisation is filled with pedos and when I saw the pic of them smiling on the balcony...I felt nauseated.

some People are working out the numerology but they do so in the abbreviated format and leave out the 2000 and so it is wrong.

reply to post by DISRAELI


It's not a major blunder and it's not worth ranting about.

Pope Francis or Pope Francis 1

It doesn't really matter

reply to post by skepticconwatcher

Agreed it's not major, so think of it as a joking rant if you like.
I did acknowledge as much in reply to the first respondent.
But it matters to pedants, as I said.

PS Apparently enough people agreed with me that the Vatican had second thoughts on the matter.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

 

Agreed it's not major, so think of it as a joking rant if you like.
I did acknowledge as much in reply to the first respondent.
But it matters to pedants, as I said.

PS Apparently enough people agreed with me that the Vatican had second thoughts on the matter.

edit on 14-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I like the added post script message.

We are surrounded by prophecy but most people don't see it. The books are being written nonetheless.