st. always necessary?
#1
this is a triffling little question. I have tried googling it every which way but found nothing. when writing about a saint is it always and in every case necessary to write "st." before the name. I ask this especially in the case where one is writing of a certain saint in a long piece and mentions the name in nearly every sentence and it seems to nearly lead to awkward phrasing at times. I have noticed that some even Catholic authors do not. in the event that one does not is it necessary to replace it with some other note of sanctity such as "the holy N." I want to show the utmost respect and reverence but sometimes it seems odd to do given the context in a piece. any information on proper form would be greatly appreciated and I doubt there is a hard and fast rule. What is your input on this?
Reply
#2
I don't think you need to.  Here, St. Pius X writes about St. Anselm--sometimes he calls him St. Anselm, and sometimes just Anselm.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/e...rerum.html

In the encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII references St. Robert Bellarmine only once, and in that instance just calls him "Bellarmine."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en...risti.html

In Fides et Ratio, St. John Paul II refers to St. Thomas Aquinas a ton, sometimes as "Saint Thomas Aquinas," sometimes as "Saint Thomas," sometimes as just "Thomas," and once even as just "Aquinas."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-i...ratio.html
Reply
#3
Whilst I agree with SS, I usually try to use an honorific when referring to a Saint, but I try to vary them. 'Saint',  'the Sainted', 'of blessed memory', etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)