Why are the Gospel writers not referred to as Saints?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lak611
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It has long been the tradition in the Western Church to include honorifics for the epistles and old testament readings, as these writers are speaking (with inspiration, of course) their own words, whereas the gospel is presumably the words and deeds of Our Lord, and hence the name of the writer does not include the title saint. It is for the same reason that we sit to hear the epistles and old testament readings, but stand to hear the gospel. The emphasis for the epistles is more on the authority of the apostles as writers, but for the gospels, the emphasis is on what Our Lord said and did, so the word Saint is not used in the announcement.

In the old Latin Mass (now gloriously available once again to those who ask), the missal says, for example, Lectio Epistolae Beati Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas, which means "A Reading (or Lessson) from the Epistle of Blessed Paul the Apostle to the Galatians. Similarly, it says, Lectio Epistolae Beati Petri Apostoli, A Reading from the Epistle of Blessed Peter the Apostle (*first *or second epistle is not mentioned). For what we now commonly call the Book of Revelation, it says, Lectio Apocalypsis Beati Joanni Apostoli, A Reading from the Apocalpyse of Blessed John the Apostle. Note that the terms Blessed and Apostle are used. (Acts of the Apostles is never credited to Luke, as that is not the name of that book).

The gospel was announced, Sequentia Sancti Evangeli Secundum Marcum, the Continuation of the Holy Gospel According to Mark. Notice that there is no Saint included in the announcement. It has been this way for centuries, for the reason mentioned above.

The official Latin version of the missal and lectionary for the current missal of Paul VI (1970) still use these exact same forms, except that the gospel now uses Lectio instead of Sequentia. The word Saint is still not used for the gospels, and *Beati *and Apostoli are still used for the epistles.

The problem is that, like the English translation of the current missal, the current 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.

BTW, the evangelists and other sacred authors are technically not “canonized” saints. It is, of course, completely proper to refer to them as Saint ____, and the Church has always done so, However, as a point a reference, there were no Roman canonization procedures until the middle ages. Prior to that, bishops declared individuals to be venerated, and in the earliest days even this was not a clear or refined process, and many of our earliest saints–the new testament saints included–were considered saints by public acclamation. Gradually bishops, and by the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Pontiff himself, became the authority for the process.
 
It has long been the tradition in the Western Church to include honorifics for the epistles and old testament readings, as these writers are speaking (with inspiration, of course) their own words, whereas the gospel is presumably the words and deeds of Our Lord, and hence the name of the writer does not include the title saint. It is for the same reason that we sit to hear the epistles and old testament readings, but stand to hear the gospel. The emphasis for the epistles is more on the authority of the apostles as writers, but for the gospels, the emphasis is on what Our Lord said and did, so the word Saint is not used in the announcement.

In the old Latin Mass (now gloriously available once again to those who ask), the missal says, for example, Lectio Epistolae Beati Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas, which means "A Reading (or Lessson) from the Epistle of Blessed Paul the Apostle to the Galatians. Similarly, it says, Lectio Epistolae Beati Petri Apostoli, A Reading from the Epistle of Blessed Peter the Apostle (*first *or second epistle is not mentioned). For what we now commonly call the Book of Revelation, it says, Lectio Apocalypsis Beati Joanni Apostoli, A Reading from the Apocalpyse of Blessed John the Apostle. Note that the terms Blessed and Apostle are used. (Acts of the Apostles is never credited to Luke, as that is not the name of that book).

The gospel was announced, Sequentia Sancti Evangeli Secundum Marcum, the Continuation of the Holy Gospel According to Mark. Notice that there is no Saint included in the announcement. It has been this way for centuries, for the reason mentioned above.

The official Latin version of the missal and lectionary for the current missal of Paul VI (1970) still use these exact same forms, except that the gospel now uses Lectio instead of Sequentia. The word Saint is still not used for the gospels, and *Beati *and Apostoli are still used for the epistles.

The problem is that, like the English translation of the current missal, the current 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.
Thanks. 🙂 That helps a lot.
BTW, the evangelists and other sacred authors are technically not “canonized” saints. It is, of course, completely proper to refer to them as Saint ____, and the Church has always done so, However, as a point a reference, there were no Roman canonization procedures until the middle ages. Prior to that, bishops declared individuals to be venerated, and in the earliest days even this was not a clear or refined process, and many of our earliest saints–the new testament saints included–were considered saints by public acclamation. Gradually bishops, and by the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Pontiff himself, became the authority for the process.
I do not understand this part of your post. I know the evangelists and other sacred authors all have feast days. How could they not be Saints?
 
In the Mass, the readers will say “A reading from the letter of St. Paul to the Romans” or “A reading from the first letter of St. Peter”, etc. However, the priest or deacon will say “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (or Mark, Luke, John).” Why are the Evangelists not referred to as Saints, when they most certainly are Saints who have been canonised by the Church?
I think because in reality, it is not known who wrote the Gospel of Luke or Matthew or Mark or John. We know what Paul wrote and it is assumed by most that Peter also wrote 1 and 2 Peter, although there is debate on that issue.

As to the Gospels, no one really knows. It is generally assumed that the author of Luke also wrote Acts. It is also generally accepted that Mark was the first Gospel written and John the last.

Beyond those situations, no one really knows.
 
We know exactly who wrote the Gospels, this has been clarified in several Church documents. St.Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, St. Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, St. Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, and St. John wrote the Gospel of John.
Nonsense. Please show me where the Church states this to be a FACT. Yes, it is mentioned in several Church documents as being the tradition but it has never been declared as Truth.
 
Thanks. 🙂 That helps a lot.

I do not understand this part of your post. I know the evangelists and other sacred authors all have feast days. How could they not be Saints?
They ARE saints. I was merely cautioning against referring to the evangelists and apostles as “canonized saints” as an argument to include the word Saint in the gospel announcement. The form is in itself incorrect, as explained in my previous post, but it would also be inaccurate to imply that Sts. Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, etc. underwent a canonization process similar to that of later saints such as St. Francis de Sales, St. Joan of Arc, St. John Vianney, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, etc. That is why I would avoid an argument that implies that since they are “canonized saints,” the word *Saint *should be included.

The Church also refers to the archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael as saints, but these are angels and not canonized saints. The Western Church does not usually refer to old testament figures as saints, though the Eastern churches often do. Hence, it is not improper to refer to “St. Abraham” or “St. Daniel,” even though one does not often hear this in our Latin Rite. In English we might say “Holy Abraham” or “Holy Daniel.” Saint and Holy are, after all, the same word.
 
The reader is adding the St on their own initiative. The St. doesn’t actually appear in the lectionary.

The priest or deacon is reading from the lectionary as written.
Sorry, but the Lectionary says:

A reading from the second Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.

A reading from the holy Gospel according to Matthew.

Lectors, if properly trained and properly serving, NEVER add to the Lectionary. NO CHANGING WORDS - NO ADDING WORDS. We are not writers of Holy Scripture and we do not have authority to change the Liturgy in any way.

By the way, this is a curious thing (St. versus no St for Gospels) but that is not as important as to what the Scriptures actually say. I focus on the Holy Words - not on details that have absolutely no impact in how I am to lead my life in HIS footsteps.

PEACE
 
Okay, folks…

The Gospel writers are referred to as Saints in the Mass…if you attend Mass in Spanish. The Spanish translation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI specifically mentions that the Gospel writers are Saints “*El evangelio segun de San Lucas” *(The Gospel according to St. Luke).

However, in our present English ICEL translation, “saint” is omitted. My theory is that this was done in order to “reach out” to our “separated Protestant brethren”, which, if true, is stupid.
 
They ARE saints. I was merely cautioning against referring to the evangelists and apostles as “canonized saints” as an argument to include the word Saint in the gospel announcement. The form is in itself incorrect, as explained in my previous post, but it would also be inaccurate to imply that Sts. Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, etc. underwent a canonization process similar to that of later saints such as St. Francis de Sales, St. Joan of Arc, St. John Vianney, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, etc. That is why I would avoid an argument that implies that since they are “canonized saints,” the word *Saint *should be included.

The Church also refers to the archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael as saints, but these are angels and not canonized saints. The Western Church does not usually refer to old testament figures as saints, though the Eastern churches often do. Hence, it is not improper to refer to “St. Abraham” or “St. Daniel,” even though one does not often hear this in our Latin Rite. In English we might say “Holy Abraham” or “Holy Daniel.” Saint and Holy are, after all, the same word.
Ok, now I understand. The are Saints, but were considered Saints before the Church had the process of canonisation. BTW, there is a Litany to the Old Testament Saints, which is not widely known, but I have seen it.
 
Sorry, but the Lectionary says:

A reading from the second Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.

A reading from the holy Gospel according to Matthew.

Lectors, if properly trained and properly serving, NEVER add to the Lectionary. NO CHANGING WORDS - NO ADDING WORDS. We are not writers of Holy Scripture and we do not have authority to change the Liturgy in any way.

By the way, this is a curious thing (St. versus no St for Gospels) but that is not as important as to what the Scriptures actually say. I focus on the Holy Words - not on details that have absolutely no impact in how I am to lead my life in HIS footsteps.

PEACE
Thank you! I have not been a reader for 20 years, so I did not remember (plus the Lectionary has been revised since I last read). I did not think readers were adding because I heard them say “A reading from the letter of St. Paul (or St. Peter, St. James, St. John or St. Jude)” in every parish I’ve been to, not just my own. All those readers could not have been wrong. I’m still curious why no St. for the Evangelists. Maybe because the focus is on Christ, as another poster said.
 
Okay, folks…

The Gospel writers are referred to as Saints in the Mass…if you attend Mass in Spanish. The Spanish translation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI specifically mentions that the Gospel writers are Saints “*El evangelio segun de San Lucas” *(The Gospel according to St. Luke).

However, in our present English ICEL translation, “saint” is omitted. My theory is that this was done in order to “reach out” to our “separated Protestant brethren”, which, if true, is stupid.
That would be weird, though, because I have been to Lutheran and Methodist services (after going to Mass). The Lutherans and Methodists use the same Gospel readings, and the minister said “Saint” before the name of the Evangelist. I have not been to any other Protestant services from denominations that use the same lectionary readings, so I do not know what their ministers say before they read the Gospel.
 
I thought by now there would have been an answer to this that cleared it up…

I guess its a mystery or something.:confused:
 
I am perplexed–it appears above that Chatter was convincing though I did not personally know what he or she related. His or her answer was complete and provided historical basis. I do not think you will ever get a better answer than the one you have now. 🙂

Matt
 
I am perplexed–it appears above that Chatter was convincing though I did not personally know what he or she related. His or her answer was complete and provided historical basis. I do not think you will ever get a better answer than the one you have now. 🙂

Matt
I agree it was an excellent answer. Yet did not address the
Why we dont hear this anymore part.

If I missed it- I apologize!
 
I agree it was an excellent answer. Yet did not address the
Why we dont hear this anymore part.

If I missed it- I apologize!
I still do not know why this is not done anymore either. It was apparently not done in the past. My 1962 Missal says: “Sequentia sancti Evangelii secundum N.”
 
I agree it was an excellent answer. Yet did not address the Why we dont hear this anymore part.

If I missed it- I apologize!
Sorry, to what to you refer when you say, “the Why we dont hear this anymore part”? :confused:
 
For instance, I can remember that the reader used to say “This is the Word of the Lord”, and the priest used to say “This is the Gospel of the Lord”, because that was in the lectionary. I know that was changed to “The Word of the Lord” and “The Gospel of the Lord”.
Yes, that transition took a while as readers would just naturally say “This is” without thinking about it. Interestingly enough, though, in what I think might be an example of ICEL (translators) incompetence, the reader/priest says the exact same thing after reading and Gospel: Verbum Domini (the Word of the Lord). This threw me the first few times I heard EWTN Mass, where they use the Latin versicles, and I wondered “Did that priest accidentally say the wrong thing?” No. The Latin is correct, the English is butchered.
 
I thought by now there would have been an answer to this that cleared it up…

I guess its a mystery or something.:confused:
Maybe it’s because we have read the Gospels at our litergy before we had a thought of formal sainthood.
Didn’t Justyn even call them the memoirs of the apostles
 
The reader is adding the St on their own initiative. The St. doesn’t actually appear in the lectionary.
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.

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.
Sorry, but the Lectionary says:

A reading from the second Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians.

A reading from the holy Gospel according to Matthew.

Lectors, if properly trained and properly serving, NEVER add to the Lectionary. NO CHANGING WORDS - NO ADDING WORDS. We are not writers of Holy Scripture and we do not have authority to change the Liturgy in any way.
The first two statements quoted say one thing, the third says another. Which is it? Does the English lectionary contain “Saint” or not? Or are missalettes getting mixed up with lectionaries? :confused:

FWIW, I think in this context “Saint” is an adequate translation of “Beati.”
 
As it has been pointed out that the Gospel citations even in the TLM do not prefix “Saint” to the names of the Evangelists, it probably has no bearing on the topic at hand; but I find a comparison of the titles used in different bibles to be interesting nevertheless:

NASV and NAB:The Gospel According To Matthew
r
Confraternity and Douay-Rheims:The Holy Gospel Of Jesus Christ According To St. Matthew
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top