Why are the Gospel writers not referred to as Saints?

[lak611]

The English language edition of the lectionary does not use *Saint *for the gospel; it does use it for the epistle.

While I agree that saint and blessed are roughly the same in this context, I object to the mistranslation for two reasons:

1. Sancti and *Beati *have precise equivalents in English and there is really no reason not to use them. It would be different if they did not both have English equivalents, but they do and thus they should be used, for the most precise translation possible.
2. To not use the most precise and accurate translation possible invites the kind of mentality that brought us the English translation of the missal, which I think most here are aware is quite defective. Also, the ICEL version avoided “churchy” sounding language at every turn, and the epistle announcement appears yet another example of that sad trend. Other examples: Birth instead of Nativity, Mary instead of Blessed Virgin Mary, Easter candle instead of Paschal candle, opening prayer instead of collect, etc.

I agree for the most part, although I think “opening prayer” sounds more “churchy” than “collect”. The term collect reminds me of paying bills, not Mass.

 

[Chatter163]

*Collect *(accent is on the first syllable, rather than the second) comes from the Latin collecta, because it collects the intentions of the Mass. Another English name is the oration, coming from oratio, prayer. To me both of these are liturgical terms, whereas opening prayer sounds like something that Congress uses to start its day.

 

[Cranch]

The problem is that, like the English translation of the current missal, the current [L]ectionary’s translations are defective. Hence, the announcements for the epistles are simplified. Lectio Epistolae Beati Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas is misrendered A Reading from the Letter of Paul to the Galatians.** Blessed and Apostle get dropped. Similarly, *Lectio Apocalypsis Beati Joanni Apostoli *gets mangled into A Reading from the Book of Revelation; the name of the disciple whom Jesus loved is not even mentioned, nor is the fact that he is an apostle.

Some missalette pubishers incorrectly insert Saint in the announcement for the epistle, and this carries over into what the lectors actually say. This is wrong, but so are the translations in the lectionary, as the official Latin version remains unchanged.

The English language edition of the lectionary does not use Saint for the gospel; it does use it for the epistle.

In reviewing this thread I continue to see no definitive answer to the contradiction created by various posts regarding the introduction to the Epistle readings in Mass (summarized in post #37). Chatter163 - I see you saying two opposite things in the posts above. What am I missing?

 

[lak611]

In reviewing this thread I continue to see no definitive answer to the contradiction created by various posts regarding the introduction to the Epistle readings in Mass (summarized in post #37). Chatter163 - I see you saying two opposite things in the posts above. What am I missing?

I am wondering the same thing. Since the two posts are contradictory, what is the correct practise?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

In reviewing this thread I continue to see no definitive answer to the contradiction created by various posts regarding the introduction to the Epistle readings in Mass (summarized in post #37). Chatter163 - I see you saying two opposite things in the posts above. What am I missing?

 

[lak611]

Andreas_Hofer:
Do you know the correct translation of the Latin into English?

 

[AJV]

I am wondering the same thing. Since the two posts are contradictory, what is the correct practise?

I took a quick peak and inside the lectionery there is no Saint. It says “A reading form the letter of Paul to the Corinthians”

 

[lak611]

I took a quick peak and inside the lectionery there is no Saint. It says “A reading form the letter of Paul to the Corinthians”

Is it possible that it is different in various lectionaries? For instance: different in the United States, Canada, England, India, Australia, and other countries that use an English lectionary.

 

[AJV]

Is it possible that it is different in various lectionaries? For instance: different in the United States, Canada, England, India, Australia, and other countries that use an English lectionary.

They do use different Scripture versions (usually JB vs. NAB vs. (N)RSV )…for the Gospel I think the introductions would have to be pretty similar since it is in the missal but I don’t know for the other readings.

According to this page there is a difference between older and newer lectionaries. The newer ones say Saint, the older ones don’t.