When did Popes start taking a new name upon their ascendancy?

>>1131194
Go read the prophecy of the popes about the Malachy prophecies and come back when you're a little older and a little wiser, shithead.

File: image.jpg (64KB, 301x487px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 301x487px

>>1131205
>Go read the prophecy of the popes about the Malachy prophecies
That debunked crap formulated long after Malachy died by a 1500's bishop trying to make his bid for the papacy be predestined by God?

Kek.

bumping for interest

I looked at the list on wikipedia. It was John II, who was named Mercurio and didn't want to bear the name of a Roman god as a pope.
Reigned between 533 and 535.
John III (561-574), or Catelinus was the second.
But it only became common at the end of the 10th century, after the fourth or fifth case.

>>1132034

Interesting.
So there's no religious motivation behind that at all? Could a pope keep his name?

File: spongebob.gif (345KB, 328x184px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 328x184px

>implying the catholic church was anything but a hijacking of the christian belief system by Rome as a way of uniting the empire and maintaining their power over the populace

>>1133600
>So there's no religious motivation behind that at all?
I suppose it could hearken back to St. Peter the first pope. His name was changed, but there's no mandate for a bishop to change his name upon ascension to the papacy
>Could a pope keep his name?
Yes

>>1131194

Don't they usually keep their old names as well?

I mean, Benedict was Ratzinger and we call him Ratzinger despite the popename.