After the controversy among Croatians about how to properly address the newly elected Roman Pontiff, one nun – bearing in mind that he is an Augustinian monk – probably a little tired of the story said: "It would be best if he took the name Augustine, then no one would complain." And indeed, rarely has such a, conditionally speaking, "banal" topic taken up so much space and remained so long in Croatian Catholic discourse as the question of whether Lav or Leon is correct. Especially since the bishops in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have decided that the variant: Lav should be used in the “Eucharistic Prayer and in the petitions of the Liturgy of the Hours”. However, many priests and lay faithful have expressed their disapproval and have continued to refer to the Pope as “Leon” and not “Lav” in their Holy Masses and prayers.

History testifies that Croats use the name Leon

And when we look at the motivation, we can undoubtedly state that this is not some whim of individuals who are tempted to make a problem and an incident out of everything, nor is it a “peasant revolt” of some groups that would rise up “against the bishop”, but simply a demand of reason and a feeling that the wrong solution has been “stormily” imposed as the norm. At the same time, it is difficult to shake off the impression that the bishops listened to linguists who, instead of defining things (which is their job), invent hot water.

And that this is so, is evidenced by the fact that the name Leon has been consistently used in Croatian liturgical books for the last 200 years. This is also the case in the current Missal, Lectionary, Book of Hours, and Ceremonial books.

Therefore, let us borrow here, as a more detailed confirmation of what has been said, what worthy people have already found, which is:

*1980: Roman Missal, KS with the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship: gives the name: Leon the Great

*1991: Order of Readings - Holy Readings, KS with the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship: Leon the Great

*1997: Book of Hours, KS with the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship: Leon the Great

*1987: Episcopal Ceremonial, KS: Leon the Great and Leon XIII.

And even further back, towards our days:

1824: Epistles and Gospels for all liturgies according to the order of the Roman Missal, brought together with prayers and blessings into the Slavic language, Rijeka: Pope Leon

1858: Readings and Gospels for all Sundays and Holy Days of the whole year for the needs of the Archdiocese of Zagreb: Pope Leo

1876: Book of Hours, Dr. Martin Štiglić, with the permission of the Archbishop of Zagreb: Leon X.

1893 and 1907: Croatian Liturgist, Zadar: Pope Leun

1923: Croatian Liturgist, Petar Vlašić, Dubrovnik: Leon XIII.

1927: Roman Missal in the Slovenian language (Old Church Slavic Missal): Leon I.

1930: Roman Missal for private use, Kniewald: Leo/Leon

1937: Blessings of St. Catholic Church, edited by Matija Kulunčić D.I.: Leon (the Great), p. 51

1944: Roman Missal, D. Kniewald: Leo/Leon

1946: Directory of the Archdiocese of Zagreb with the approval of Archbishop Stepinac: Leon XIII.

1967: Missal for all days of the year, Jure Radić, Makarska: Leon I.

1978: Own Missal of the Society of Jesus, Zagreb, with the approval of the Congregation: Leon (Mangin)

1988: Collection of Holy Masses on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Kršćanska sadašnjost, with the approval of the Congregation: Leon XIII.

1997: Own Missal of the Archdiocese of Zagreb, Zagreb, with the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship: Leon I (Emperor)

2010: Exorcisms and Other begging, KS, translation with the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship: Leon (the Great)

2016: Own Book of Hours of the OCD: Leon XIII

2017: Sunday and Holiday Missal for the People, Kršćanska sadašnjost: Leon (Leon XIII and in the Litany of All Saints)

2017: Book of Hours and Missal of the Vincent Family, Kršćanska sadašnjost, translation with the approval of the Congregation for Divine Worship: Leon XIII

Two errors of the “literal” explanation

With this in mind, it is logical to ask how it is that we have recently abandoned what our people had long established? The answer is simple: someone, for some reason, thought that we should translate everything literally. This is exactly what Prof. Marko Alerić interpreted on HRT, in the show Dobro jutro, Hrvatska, stating that – if it is not translated – the Pope should be addressed as “Leo” because it is the nominative case of a Latin noun, and “Leon” (Λέων) would be from Greek, but it is not “the official language of the Church”. He also mentioned that the Cardinal Protodeacon, in announcing to the city and the world “great joy” that we have a new pope, said that he used the accusative case of the noun Leo – which is Leonem, (Qui sibi nomen imposuit Leonem) and that this led people to then address him as Leon.

However, the truth is that this “explanation” has two fundamental errors:

First, it is pointless to translate names literally. If a name has become established among Croats as such, then there is no need to “translate” it. And Leon – as we have seen from the above titles – is very much rooted in the Croatian language and, perhaps more importantly, in usage. The fact is that many Croats bear the name Leon or the feminine version Leona, while the same cannot be said for the name Lav (although there are, but immeasurably fewer of them), and especially for some – probably invented feminine version of that name which could possibly be pronounced as Lava or Lavica (Lioness)?

To make it clearer, if Professor Alerić and such linguists insisted on a literal translation of the name, then his name would not be Marko but Borko or possibly Ratko, since the name Marko also comes from Latin – “Marcus” and is associated with the Roman god of war Mars and then the meaning is interpreted as “fighter” (Borko) or “warrior” (Ratko). But no, Croats have long accepted the name Marko (although the names Borko and Ratko also exist, but much less frequently), just as, as we have seen, they have accepted the name Leon (and there is also the name Lav, but much less frequently), and there is no need for any new linguistic exhibitions.

The argument, therefore, that the new Pope is addressed by the name Lav because it was in use before, i.e. that Croats have been using it for centuries, is on the same level as the fact that the names Borko and Ratko exist, but we have the far more widespread Marko.

Following the aforementioned logic of literal translation, it would seem even more banal if by any chance Cardinal Robert F. Prevost took the name of Liberius II. (Pope Liberius 352-366) then we would - probably to the joy of our eastern neighbours - call him Slobodan. Or, even more drastically, that, like four of his predecessors from earlier times, he was called Anastasius, which then according to the literal translation from the Greek (ἀνάστασις – anástasis, to rise, to rise) could be: Ustaša.

Second, the rule of taking Latin names in -ō – as explained by the former professor of classical languages at the Franciscan Classical High School in Visoko, OFM Ivica Studenović – points to their base, not to the nominative. "The base is only visible in the oblique cases. So in Croatian it is Ciceron (base), not Cicero (nominative)... Nazon, not Nazo; Katon, not Kato; Scipion, not Scipio; Neron, not Nero... By the same logic it is Leon, not Leo, which avoids the accumulation of vowels in the Croatian declension (Lea, Leu, Lea...)", explained OFM Ivica.

The religious feeling: Leon

And that our ancestors knew all this very well, is evidenced by the fact from the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Sarajevo, where on the lintel of the door leading to the choir (on the right side of the vestibule) there are recorded data about its consecration, and among other things it is said that it was on September 14^th, 1889, "time of Pope Leon XIII." So now the priests who will be praying in the Sarajevo cathedral will read one and pronounce the other…

Interestingly, the Archbishop of Belgrade Cardinal Ladislav Német did not have the same temptation as the Croatian and Bosnian bishops, but – contrary to what we would think, as it is done in the Serbian language – he decreed that the Pope in the liturgy and prayers be addressed as “Leon”.

And the faithful people see and feel all this and perceive the decree about “Lav” as wrong. This is also evident from the poll of the Katolički tjednik where already “in the first round” – using the image of the election – “Leon” swept “Lav” with almost 70% compared to 25% (and 6% of those who said it was all the same).

Also, a lady who spent her entire life “in the church” and with the Church, humbly asked the editorial office to convey the voice of the people and the experience, as she said, that when the name Lav (lion) is mentioned in the Holy Mass, people would see the image of a lion from the credits of the films of the American production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures. Similarly, the priests said that they would pray for “Pope Lav” and then read lines from the First Epistle of Peter in the evening: “Be sober! Be vigilant! Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith…” (5:8-9).

It is obvious, therefore, that without much thought, Lav was imposed and Leon was expelled – to which the Church, by some inertia, agreed. Therefore: it is not a shame to say that we have made a mistake, it is a shame to persist in what is wrong.