Why are some Protestants afraid of using "Saint" before an Apostle or disciple of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Harpazo

Guest
I’ve always wondered this. Now, please don’t get all “uppity” and say that I’m labelling all Protestants. I’m aware that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some others use “Saint” before a biblical person’s name, i.e. St. Luke’s Lutheran Church, St. John’s UMC, etc.

But for the evangelicals, and other Protestants, why is this such a stretch? Do you not believe that St. Paul is in Heaven, or do you believe that St. James is burning in Hell? I’m just trying to gain understanding, please don’t take offense to my questions.

Comments, discussion, etc.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
I’ve always wondered this. Now, please don’t get all “uppity” and say that I’m labelling all Protestants. I’m aware that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some others use “Saint” before a biblical person’s name, i.e. St. Luke’s Lutheran Church, St. John’s UMC, etc.

But for the evangelicals, and other Protestants, why is this such a stretch? Do you not believe that St. Paul is in Heaven, or do you believe that St. James is burning in Hell? I’m just trying to gain understanding, please don’t take offense to my questions.

Comments, discussion, etc.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
Click to expand...
I can tell you as a former Evangelical, when we would discuss these kinds of issues amongst ourselves, we always thought that each of us was equal to each other in the eyes of God, past, present and future, (we always quoted the verse “God is no respecter of persons”, taking it out of context of course) and therefore, to refer to someone as St. as part of their “title” tended to put them on a pedestal, setting them above the rest of the saints, which was just not done. It also smacked of “ritual”, (therefore “dead”), religious speak.

Now, I can’t say this is what is in the thoughts and minds of every Evangelical/Fundamentalist when they address the Apostles by name, many probably don’t even think about it at all, they just know what they’ve always heard others say around them and from the pulpit, no need to question it, everything else is just plain foreign.
 
I agree with Jeanette L’s answer.

I’m a former evangelical Protestant and we used the term differently than Catholics. To an evangelical Christian, everyone who is Christian is a saint right now. See verses like Philippians 1: 1 and Ephesians 2: 19, where living believers are referred to as “saints.”

Catholics use the term this way, too, but when they address an individual as a “saint,” they mean that the person has been determined to be in heaven with Jesus. This concept is totally unknown and unacceptable to evangelical Christians, who believe that all who have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior will go to heaven immediately upon their death.
 
Well, I really don’t know exactly, but I am a protestant ( who is considering converting to Catholicism) Southern Baptist to be exact, and we use the term “saint” to describe the status of anyone who has died, physically, and is alive with Christ. Or at least that is the definition as I understand it. I really don’t think it’s considered offensive, so I guess it’s like Jeanette was saying, it’s just really not even brought up. And I have always been told that we are not to judge, that it’s not our place to say, saint…or not, as we truly can’t know peoples souls the way God does, regardless of how they seem. That is a possibility, although thats just an idea, I really don’t know. Good question, I’d like to see how others answer.
 
kedera said:
Well, I really don’t know exactly, but I am a protestant ( who is considering converting to Catholicism) Southern Baptist to be exact, and we use the term “saint” to describe the status of anyone who has died, physically, and is alive with Christ. Or at least that is the definition as I understand it. I really don’t think it’s considered offensive, so I guess it’s like Jeanette was saying, it’s just really not even brought up. And I have always been told that we are not to judge, that it’s not our place to say, saint…or not, as we truly can’t know peoples souls the way God does, regardless of how they seem. That is a possibility, although thats just an idea, I really don’t know. Good question, I’d like to see how others answer.
Click to expand...
As a former S. Baptist, I would agree with Kedera. I would add, though, that I can remember hearing St. used from time to time by people in the church when referring to an especially well known saint (as in St. Peter, St. Paul, etc.). But never consistently or often. It was even done from the pulpit at times. I don’t ever recall there being any “rules” about the usage of St.; it just, generally, wasn’t done. As others have said, we were all ‘saints.’

Lisa
 
Jeanette_L said:
I can tell you as a former Evangelical, when we would discuss these kinds of issues amongst ourselves, we always thought that each of us was equal to each other in the eyes of God, past, present and future, (we always quoted the verse “God is no respecter of persons”, taking it out of context of course) and therefore, to refer to someone as St. as part of their “title” tended to put them on a pedestal, setting them above the rest of the saints, which was just not done. It also smacked of “ritual”, (therefore “dead”), religious speak.

Now, I can’t say this is what is in the thoughts and minds of every Evangelical/Fundamentalist when they address the Apostles by name, many probably don’t even think about it at all, they just know what they’ve always heard others say around them and from the pulpit, no need to question it, everything else is just plain foreign.
Click to expand...
Yup, exactly. I was raised to believe that we are all equal in God’s eyes, and that we are all considered “saints” in Heaven. So for someone to be named “Saint” so and so, feels like we are lesser, if that makes any sense. I am a Protestant, who’s husband’s family are all Catholic. So I am now very comfortable with the Saints, as I realize that what I was taught is not correct. 🙂
 
I imagine it also stems from a different understanding of grace and justification. In Catholicism, grace is infused by God into the individual, effecting an ontological change in the individual. The individual, in being justified, truly goes from being an unrighteous sinner, towards being a righteous saint. Sanctification and justification are not separated in Catholicism. They go hand in hand. Therefore, in Catholicism, a Christian is continually being justified and sanctified throughout his or her life. The degree of sanctity depends, in large part, to the Christian’s responses to God throughout life. There is a tendency in Catholicism to see degrees of sanctity (as seen in the three stages: purgative, illuminative, unitive).

In Protestantism, or at least in certain groups of Protestantism, grace is not infused by God into the individual but rather concerns God’s attitude, or how God sees a sinner. In Protestantism, when a person is justified, this means that God no longer sees the unrighteousness of the sinner, but only sees the righteousness of Christ that the sinner puts on. The Christian remains a sinner, but also has become a saint. Yet, the idea of saintliness is different here. Saintliness comes not from the continual synergy of call and response, but raither from the decisive moment when God alone moves the sinner to faith. A person’s becoming saintly is the work of God alone, and God does not raise one sinful human being above another in saintliness, since the justification is one and the same.
 
Harpazo said:
I’ve always wondered this. Now, please don’t get all “uppity” and say that I’m labelling all Protestants. I’m aware that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some others use “Saint” before a biblical person’s name, i.e. St. Luke’s Lutheran Church, St. John’s UMC, etc.

But for the evangelicals, and other Protestants, why is this such a stretch? Do you not believe that St. Paul is in Heaven, or do you believe that St. James is burning in Hell? I’m just trying to gain understanding, please don’t take offense to my questions.

Comments, discussion, etc.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
Click to expand...
Short answer: Because Catholics do. I came from an Independent Fundamental Baptist church that wouldn’t do ANYTHING that smelled remotely Catholic.

As other posters have said, the idea is that we’re all saints so it’s not necessary to call the Biblical writers St Luke or St Paul. In my IFB circles, St Paul was more often called “Brother Paul” usually right before they took his words out of context. :rotfl:
 
Hi Saint Andrew, we recognise all christians as being saints, so our problem really is exculding all christians but, Saint whoever in congregations of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,

2 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia:
 
I vaguely remember reading about a 19th-century high-church Anglican who was discomfited by this practice among the Evangelicals, and remarked: “They could at least call him Mister Paul.”
 
In the more mainline groups, there is no problem with using “saint” in conjunction to biblical writers or historical persons whom have been declared “saints” by Catholic or Orthodox.

St John Chryostrom, St Basil, St Gregory, St. Teresa of Avila, St Francis…etc…isn’t a problem.

With more Fundamentalists or some Evangelicals, they don’t wish to make a distinction between the “saints” today, those “saved” and the “saints” of yesterday…those “saved” and who have gone on before.

I don’t think 'afraid" is accurate…“avoidant” perhaps, but not “afraid”.
 
Le_Cracquere said:
I vaguely remember reading about a 19th-century high-church Anglican who was discomfited by this practice among the Evangelicals, and remarked: “They could at least call him Mister Paul.”
Click to expand...
Actually I thing “Saint” is a pretty cool way of showing honor to those who have gone on before us who were great in the faith.

Sort of like how us musicians might use the term Maestro for great musicians or Doctor for those with advanced degrees.

Of course if I had my way we would have St. John Wesley and in the near future have St. Billy Graham.
 
Why is it that Catholics do not call the Evangelists Saints when the Gospel is read? The reader will say “A reading from the letter of St. Paul (or St. James, or St. Peter) to . . .” but the priest will say "A reading from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (or Mark, Luke, or John), never mentioning “Saint”. Granted, my Douay-Rheims Bible says "St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John; but so does my KJV. Why doesn’t the priest (or deacon) who reads the Gospel call the Evangelists Saints, since they most certainly are?
 
mozart-250 said:
Actually I thing “Saint” is a pretty cool way of showing honor to those who have gone on before us who were great in the faith.

Sort of like how us musicians might use the term Maestro for great musicians or Doctor for those with advanced degrees.

Of course if I had my way we would have St. John Wesley and in the near future have St. Billy Graham.
Click to expand...
And indeed they are. So the question might be reversed, why do Catholics NOT refer to all the saints as saints and address only those that are beatified by the salutation of saint?
 
This is a great explanation of the difference between Catholic and protestant thought, Thanks so much!
Goblin_Taters said:
I imagine it also stems from a different understanding of grace and justification. In Catholicism, grace is infused by God into the individual, effecting an ontological change in the individual. The individual, in being justified, truly goes from being an unrighteous sinner, towards being a righteous saint. Sanctification and justification are not separated in Catholicism. They go hand in hand. Therefore, in Catholicism, a Christian is continually being justified and sanctified throughout his or her life. The degree of sanctity depends, in large part, to the Christian’s responses to God throughout life. There is a tendency in Catholicism to see degrees of sanctity (as seen in the three stages: purgative, illuminative, unitive).

In Protestantism, or at least in certain groups of Protestantism, grace is not infused by God into the individual but rather concerns God’s attitude, or how God sees a sinner. In Protestantism, when a person is justified, this means that God no longer sees the unrighteousness of the sinner, but only sees the righteousness of Christ that the sinner puts on. The Christian remains a sinner, but also has become a saint. Yet, the idea of saintliness is different here. Saintliness comes not from the continual synergy of call and response, but raither from the decisive moment when God alone moves the sinner to faith. A person’s becoming saintly is the work of God alone, and God does not raise one sinful human being above another in saintliness, since the justification is one and the same.
Click to expand...
 
I have always wondered this, but never wanted to ask. I hope someone knows.
lak611 said:
Why is it that Catholics do not call the Evangelists Saints when the Gospel is read? The reader will say “A reading from the letter of St. Paul (or St. James, or St. Peter) to . . .” but the priest will say "A reading from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (or Mark, Luke, or John), never mentioning “Saint”. Granted, my Douay-Rheims Bible says "St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John; but so does my KJV. Why doesn’t the priest (or deacon) who reads the Gospel call the Evangelists Saints, since they most certainly are?
Click to expand...
 
Hellisreal said:
I have always wondered this, but never wanted to ask. I hope someone knows.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard them say “Gospel according to St. N” on EWTN and in some other parishes. Does anyone know if this is in the lectionary.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
I’ve heard them say “Gospel according to St. N” on EWTN and in some other parishes. Does anyone know if this is in the lectionary.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
Click to expand...
Thanks for the post,

But I hear the crickets chirping now.😦
 
Simple answer to the OP’s original question: it simply “sounds” too Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top