By Fr. Dr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Amos_
Since the death of the Apostle Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the rock upon which Christ declared He would build His Church (cf. Matthew 16:18), the Roman Pontificate has seen 267 successors. They have borne names echoing illustrious saints, revered predecessors, martyrs, and even emperors turned penitents. Yet none has dared to assume the name “Peter II.” This curious omission is not incidental, nor is it driven by mere superstition. It is grounded in a profound theological sensitivity, a canonical consciousness, and an ecclesiological symbolism that has matured over the centuries.
Peter is not merely a name—it is a primordial office, a unique foundation. As Richard P. McBrien notes, “Peter is not merely a name; he is an office and a theological event” (*Lives of the Popes*, 1997). Jesus’ words to Simon Bar-Jonah, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” are universally interpreted by Catholic tradition as conferring a singular authority, one that no other apostle or bishop could replicate in its fullness. In this light, Peter is not simply the first among equals; he is the irreplaceable cornerstone of the Petrine ministry. Every Pope since has inherited his office, but not his name. To adopt it would risk collapsing the distinction between the unique origin and the enduring succession.
The theological implication is echoed in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, who once remarked that “Peter is the prototype of the office, not its successor by name. There can be no second Peter just as there is no second Christ” (General Audience, May 7, 2008). This insight suggests that the papacy, while continuous and real, is anchored in an unrepeatable event. Peter is not simply the first Pope; he is the Pope par excellence—his name reserved as a sacred icon of ecclesial unity and apostolic authority.
Beyond theology, there exists a deep-rooted ecclesiastical tradition, an unwritten law of reverence. Though no canon explicitly forbids the use of the name Peter, the tradition has become so universal that it functions with the weight of law. According to Canon 23 of the 1983 *Codex Iuris Canonici*, custom can acquire the force of law if it has been observed with the intent of establishing law. Over two millennia of abstention has turned this custom into an immovable norm. The 18th-century hagiographer Alban Butler observed, “The name Peter is so revered that to bear it as a Pope would suggest a rivalry, a comparison, or worse, a substitution” (*Lives of the Saints*, vol. II).
The symbolic weight of the name also plays a key role. In Catholic thought, names are sacramental signs—bearers of theological significance. Just as no Pope would dare take the name “Jesus II” or “Mary I,” the name Peter is shrouded in an aura of singular sanctity. Jean Daniélou, S.J., notes in his *Theology of Jewish Christianity* (1964) that to reuse the name Peter would be to “dilute the apostolic uniqueness with ecclesiastical arrogance.” That sense of symbolic humility has preserved the name in sacred isolation.
Humility, indeed, is central to this tradition. It is not that Popes fear Peter’s name, but that they revere it. As George Weigel insightfully writes, “The Popes have known instinctively that one does not wear the sandals of the Fisherman by imitating his name, but by living his cross” (*Witness to Hope*, 1999). The choice not to be called Peter is, paradoxically, an affirmation of Peter’s primacy. It is the humility of those who understand they are stewards, not founders.
One cannot ignore, too, the influence of apocalyptic mythology—particularly the so-called “Prophecy of the Popes” attributed to St. Malachy. Though widely regarded as a post-medieval forgery (see: M. J. O’Brien, *An Historical and Critical Account of the Prophecies of St. Malachy*, 1871), this curious document names the final Pope as *Petrus Romanus*, under whose reign the world would be judged. While not a theological source, the cultural echo of this myth has occasionally deterred the use of the name Peter, lest it invoke apocalyptic fears or eschatological confusion.
Despite this avoidance, the papal prerogative remains legally open. As Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., clarifies, “The Pope is free to choose any name. That none has chosen ‘Peter’ shows a reverence so entrenched that it is almost dogmatic by habit” (*Inside the Vatican*, 1996). It is not law, but love—love for the first Shepherd and his unique closeness to Christ—that explains the long-standing restraint.
Would the election of a Pope who chooses the name “Peter II” constitute heresy or liturgical scandal? Likely not. But it would be a theological tremor. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger once remarked in an interview that such a decision would be “a profound rupture in the psychology of the Church,” creating not only confusion, but also discomfort at a symbolic level (see: *Salt of the Earth*, 1996).
To sum up, the absence of “Peter II” among the successors of the Apostle is not a gap, but a testimony. It signals the Church’s deep veneration for the one whom Christ chose as the earthly head of His Church. Every Pope, in essence, is Peter—not by name, but by office. To call oneself Peter would be redundant, if not irreverent. Peter remains alone—not out of clerical jealousy or papal unworthiness—but because the foundation is never duplicated; it is only built upon.
Thus, the Bishop of Rome will always be the successor of Peter, but never his namesake. His name is etched not on papal tiaras, but on the unshakable rock of the Church’s beginning.
*Copied*
Fr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Amos.
