Lectionary question

[davidosb]

Greetings,

This morning as I was leaving the church after Mass, I was told that I had made a small error in my reading of the epistle (from I John.) Apparently it’s no longer the norm to affix the “Saint” to the author’s name when introducing the reading. I was told I should have said what was written in the lectionary, that is, “A reading from the First Letter of John”, and not added the term “Saint”.

I was sure I had actually seen the word “Saint” printed in the lectionary, and went to the sacristy to check. Sure enough, “A reading from the First Letter of Saint John” was spelled out, clear as day. However when I turned the page to the day’s Gospel, I saw “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to John”, without the saint.

I have two questions:
a) Why the discrepancy between epistle and gospel? Was John a saint when he wrote/collected his epistles, but not his gospel?

b) What is the reasoning behind the church’s decision to remove the term “Saint” from these introductions? The only possible argument I’ve heard is that, in the cases where an epistle or gospel might possibly have been more of a collection of the writings of two or more Christians than a work by a single evangelist, it’s best not to refer to the “author” as Saint, since this might somehow be unfair to those other authors/compilers… I dunno, in my opinion that sounds pretty weak.

Thanks in advance.
-David

 

[rciadan]

I don’t believe you can go wrong with referring the St. John the divine as “Saint” at any time, anywhere. talk about legalistic (not you, them)!

 

[davidosb]

Personally, I don’t think I can go wrong with the “Saint” either. But I’m a postulant at a Benedictine Abbey, and my corrector this morning was my Abbot. For now I will obey and omit the term “Saint”, it’s not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. But I’d still appreciate help/answers to my questions. :S

 

[Cristiano]

Personally, I don’t think I can go wrong with the “Saint” either. But I’m a postulant at a Benedictine Abbey, and my corrector this morning was my Abbot. For now I will obey and omit the term “Saint”, it’s not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. But I’d still appreciate help/answers to my questions. :S

Maybe the prudent thing to do is to ask the question directly to the Abbot. You can just mention that you simply read the discrepancy on the lectionary, and that from now on you will obey his rule.

 

[lak611]

Why in the TLM are the Evangelists called Saints, but the writers of the epistles are called Blessed? For instance “from the first letter of Blessed Peter, the Apostle” or “continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John”.

 

[davidosb]

Maybe the prudent thing to do is to ask the question directly to the Abbot. You can just mention that you simply read the discrepancy on the lectionary, and that from now on you will obey his rule.

Cristiano - Done, and he (the Abbot) is sort of curious about the discrepancy as well. There must be some reason for it… it can’t be a mere typo.

Why in the TLM are the Evangelists called Saints, but the writers of the epistles are called Blessed? For instance “from the first letter of Blessed Peter, the Apostle” or “continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John”.

lak611 - I was wondering if the saint/blessed “discrepancy” in the missal was a recent invention, but forgot that it’s present in the TLM as well. Hopefully someone can shed some light on this! Thanks for the replies so far.

 

[AJV]

Why in the TLM are the Evangelists called Saints, but the writers of the epistles are called Blessed? For instance “from the first letter of Blessed Peter, the Apostle” or “continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John”.

In the TLM, there is no “St.”-it is like the formula used in the NO for the Gospel except that instead of “lectio” it reads “sequentia”.

“Blessed” is like the adjective-even in the Office one often addresses saints as “beate so-and-so”.

I would guess that the difference in address between the Reading and Gospel is perhaps because the Gospel is focused on the words of Christ rather than being an address of the evangelist.

 

[lak611]

In the TLM, there is no “St.”-it is like the formula used in the NO except that instead of “lectio” it reads “sequentia”. “blessed” is like the adjective-even in the Office one often addresses saints as “beate so-and-so”

I don’t know the Latin. I just mentioned what is in my 1962 Missal in the English. The Missal doesn’t give the Latin for the epistle and gospel.