What's in a name?

Being a little outside the loop and having relatively little in common with the new Pope (except being an American and orthodox Trinitarian), I probably am venturing a bit outside my realm but Lutherans might want to know a bit about the name this Pope has chosen. Before the onslaught of comments about him being the anti-Christ, let us recall that every Lutheran honors him as the rightful Bishop of Rome and would appreciate a little orthodox help from him in our battle for confessional and liturgical catholicism.

The first Leo is called the Great because he is one of those who defined what the papacy is -- even if it is not what it was. He was Pope from September of 440 to November of 461, a span of 21 years comprising the tenth longest reign of any pope. He is not only called the Great but has been accorded the honor of being called one of two Doctors of the Church (non-medical for you who do not know). Perhaps this is due to the fact the he is the first of the pope whose theological output we know well (a hundred or so sermons and nearly 150 letters).

Born in Rome about 400 and presumed of Tuscan roots, we know little about his early life except that he was a deacon under Celestine I (422-32) and Sixtus III (432-40). When elected, he was well known, fairly prominent, and had figured large in the Council of Ephesus (431) and in the response of the orthodox to the Nestorians. He was a deacon when elected (yes, it was the way then) and was not even there for his election but was in Gaul. He is most well known for combating heresies -- from Christological errors to the Pelagians. He required reception from the chalice at Mass mandatory to root out the Manichaeans who refused to consume the wine.

Not far from Nicea, Chalcedon, and other councils, Christology was often the focus -- including Leo standing the line against Eutyches and his error later called Monophysitism, the denial of the two natures, divine and human, in the one person of Christ. The second council at Ephesus (449) did not turn out so well with the patriarch of Constantinople beaten nearly to death by heretics and Leo's letter refused. No wonder Leo immediately declared the council null and void and championed the separation of church and state with Emperor Theodosius II, demanding that he cease interfering with matters that fall under the authority of the Church and its bishops. Finally his letter was read and it was met with favor "Peter has spoken through Leo.”

Then there was the invasion of the Visigoths and the Huns under Attila were supposedly turned away not with might of sword but Leo's words -- must have been some powerful words! The feast of St. Leo is November 10th -- a fairly important day for Lutherans, after all. So this Leo, like the seven Leos after him, simply had the Christian name Leo and did not claim a name (the custom coming later). One of them was a kingmaker -- Leo III who crowned Charlemagne. Five of the next Leos were pope within a 62 year time span, three for less than a year and one for 82 days. By the time Leo IX took the name, it had fallen out of favor and took another 220 years before Leo X came along -- another Luther connection here. Both the tenth and eleventh Popes named Leo were Medicis -- probably enough said there. The next big Leo was the first pope post-Vatican I and with the papal centrism of Rome now fully enshrined in conciliar pronouncement. With the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Pope Leo XIII effectively laid the foundations for the social teachings of Rome down to the present day.   Those teachings are worthy of their own consideration but they have been pivotal for Rome, to be sure.  

I am not sure what to say about the name arising again but Lutherans might be watching to see how this Leo might fare and if his name will have anymore Lutheran connections.  It is certainly too early to add the Great to his name and any other modifier will have to stand the test of time.  It may be too soon to suggest he could be Leo the Radical find commonality with his Augustinian brother in Germany and would it not be a wonder if he were to call the Augsburg Confession a catholic one. It would not hurt my feelings. It also seems to accord with one of his first homilies who is the rock in Jesus' promise that upon this rock He will build His Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her.  In any case, I hope a little of the orthodox blood of his forebears lives in him to preserve the catholic and apostolic witness of the Biblical Christology and his willingness to call out and condemn heretics. Better this than "Who am I to judge?"