DOCTRINAL INSTRUMENT
OF SALVATION:
THE USE OF SCRIPTURE IN THE PRAYER BOOK LECTIONARY
David P. Curry
This article was first published in The Prayer
Book. A Theological Conference held at St. Peter's Cathedral,
Charlottetown, P.E.I. June 25th28th, 1985. Charlottetown:
St. Peter Publications. It is published on this site with the
permission of St. Peter Publications.
Introduction
Part I
A brief examination of the arguments advanced in favour of
adopting a new
lectionary
Part II
A brief analysis of the essential principles underlying the
new lectionary
Part III
A study of the Prayer Book lectionary against which the new
changes are
advanced.
Appendix
Notes
Reply
Introduction
The study of the lectionary marks only the beginning of
a consideration of the Church's use of scripture. Lectionaries are
ordered programmes for the regular reading of Holy Scripture in the life of
the Church. Such use of scripture suggests as much about the view of
scripture as about the character of the Church. For not all Christian
churches have a fully developed system for the reading of scripture, and
among those churches which do have lectionaries of one sort or another, both
the scope of the lectionaries and the principles upon which they are based
may vary. And thereupon the vision and form of spiritual life varies.
That a church has a lectionary and what its scope and principles are
together contribute to the distinguishing characteristics of such a church
and express something of its doctrinal standpoint. For as Stephen
Sykes has pointed out, "the whole ethos of the church has a doctrinal basis
and doctrinal implications" such that "the very fact that the scripture has
been read expresses a doctrine."1
That the scriptures should be read publicly, regularly, and orderly
publicly, as an act of worship, in principle, of the whole church;
regularly, as on a daily and continuing basis; and orderly, as according to
an appointed schedule of readings are all expressions of the church's
teaching or doctrine about scripture and about the church's own life.
Equally so, the principles upon which the reading of scripture is ordered
are necessarily matters of doctrine.
For the Anglican Church the ordered reading of
scripture has formed the crucial and fundamental basis for our tradition of
common prayer. The whole of common prayer may be seen to emerge from
the desire to provide people with a simple, straightforward, and plain order
for the reading of Holy Scripture, as Cranmer's 1549 Preface
makes clear.2
In the matter of English lectionaries, as in all other matters of Anglican
liturgy, it would be wrong to focus unduly or exclusively on Cranmer, either
for censure or praise, as if he were some sort of crackpot, albeit
Ingenious, liturgical eccentric. In these matters the English Prayer
Book tradition must be seen within the whole of the wider western liturgical
tradition, and as making a signal contribution to that tradition through the
development of common prayer. With respect to common prayer, of
course, Cranmer's work was altogether fundamental to its development.
Certainly in the matter of the lectionary, however, one
must look both backwards and forwards from Cranmer. The Cranmerian
lectionaries of 1549 and 1552 belong to an organic development in the
understanding and use of scripture that has both antecedents and
consequences. Cranmer was by no means unique in the sixteenth century
in perceiving the limitations of the complicated pattern of readings in the
Late Medieval Church; nor was he alone in wanting to provide for a simpler
and plainer order for scripture reading. The obvious example is the
Breviary of the Spanish Cardinal Francisco de Quinones (d. 1540)
commissioned by Pope Clement VII and published under Pope Paul III in 1535,
which influenced Cranmer considerably, as may be seen both in his three
drafts of the lectionary and in the actual wording of the 1549 Preface,
which is similar to that of Quinones.3
The crucial difference between the two is just the difference between a
breviary, intended primarily and explicitly for the use of clergy and
religious according to their rules, and a book of common prayer, intended
for the use of all, clergy and laity alike.
The principal importance of Cranmer's use of scripture
lies in establishing the ordered reading of scripture as the basis of common
prayer.4
The subsequent developments in the lectionary, until very recently, may be
seen as contributing to, improving and, in some sense, completing that
project. They are developments which lie within a coherent tradition
of the systematic and doctrinal use of scripture as the basis of common
prayer. Within that tradition the fundamental principle governing the
lectionaries is the understanding of scripture as a doctrinal
instrument of salvation. For salvation, or the end and
perfection of man, is revealed by God; scripture is God's revealed Word.
This principle is most clearly stated by Richard Hooker:
The end of the Word of God is to save, and
therefore we term it the word of life. The way for all men to
be saved is by the knowledge of that truth which the word hath taught .
. . . To this end the word of God no otherwise serveth
than only in the nature of a doctrinal instrument. It saveth because
it maketh "wise to salvation. "5
Such a view understands a necessary and intimate
relation between scripture and doctrine. Such an understanding governs
the reading of scripture in the Prayer Book tradition.
The understanding of scripture as a doctrinal
instrument of salvation provides the logic of the Prayer Book lectionaries.
In the re-awakened interest and, indeed, discovery of the Prayer Book, much
thought must be given to the ordered reading of scripture as contained in
the lectionary. This is necessary for three reasons: first, the
intrinsic merits of the lectionary itself which, I think, we in our
generation are only just now beginning to understand and appreciate; second,
the fundamental relation of the lectionary to the tradition of common prayer
and especially to the doctrines of justification and sanctification embodied
within that tradition; third, alternate liturgy or liturgies containing
alternative lectionaries are now urged upon us. These cannot be
appreciated without a proper understanding of the programme of the ordered
reading of scripture in the Prayer Book.
In June 1983 the General Synod of the Anglican Church
of Canada set in motion a process for the adoption for use of a book of
alternative services to be used alongside and not in place of the 1962
Canadian Prayer Book, or so we are assured. While the book has only
recently appeared in its fullness in the public domain, some parts of it
have been in existence and approved for use for some time. The new
lectionary belongs to this latter category. Since 1980 there has been
in authorized use an alternative lectionary to that of the Prayer Book.6
This proposed lectionary, as amended in 1983 by the Committee for the
Consultation on Common Texts, has become the official alternative lectionary
of the Book of Alternative Services. But the principles
of the new lectionary and its relation to the tradition of common prayer
remain to be considered. The importance of the lectionary in the
church's life requires that any proposed changes be carefully considered.
Furthermore, both the reasons advanced for the adoption of the new
lectionary and the principles upon which it is based equally demand a
reconsideration of the lectionary in the Prayer Book tradition.
This paper seeks to promote at least the beginnings of
such a consideration. It consists of three parts: first, a brief
examination of the arguments advanced in favour of adopting a new
lectionary; second, a brief analysis of the essential principles underlying
the new lectionary; and third, a study of the Prayer Book lectionary against
which the new changes are advanced. The first part focuses chiefly on
two documents: the proposed lectionary authorized for use in 1980, and that
lectionary as amended which appeared in the 'binder-book' draft of the 1983
General Synod7
and which is contained within the Book of Alternative Services. Both
works provide introductions explaining the reason for the new proposed
lectionary; these must be examined.
The second part treats briefly the Ordo Lectionum
Missae (OLM), 1969, Vatican,8
which is the declared source of the lectionaries proposed for use in the
Anglican Church of Canada and elsewhere. OLM argues in
part the ascendency of modern biblical criticism as providing the logic for
changing the lectionary.
The third and principal part of the paper concentrates
on the use of scripture as a doctrinal instrument of salvation within the
lectionaries of the Prayer Book, centering somewhat on the lectionary of the
1962 Canadian Prayer Book, but with reference to the general history of
Prayer Book development and to the various Anglican writers who draw out and
explain the general logic informing the church's use of scripture.
A note of explanation and clarification must be added.
The term 'lectionary' can have both a comprehensive use and a specific use.
For instance, the lectionary of the Prayer Book comes to comprehend several
specific lectionaries: the daily office lectionary, the Sunday office
lectionary, and the eucharistic lectionary (including the propers for
saints' days, etc.). The lectionary also, properly speaking,
comprehends the ordered use of the Psalter within the daily offices, the
Sunday offices, and the eucharist. The importance of the Psalter within the
devotional life of the Church and, in particular, within the tradition of
common prayer, cannot be gainsaid. It is one of the many weaknesses of
this paper that it does not very much attend to the use of the Psalter
within the lectionary system.
Part I
The Canadian Church lectionary revisers have provided
us with two introductions to the proposed lectionary, both remarkable for
the tenor of their argument. These introductions advance two reasons
why the new lectionary should be adopted: ecumenism, and the limitations of
the Prayer Book eucharistic lectionary.
In the 1980 Introduction, the ecumenical argument is
that we should do what everybody else is doing in lectionary revision.
This means to follow Rome and pick up the Ordo Lectionum Missae
(OLM),9
as a number of churches have done for their lectionary revisions. But,
as we are now so often told, this is not the end of the process of
lectionary revisions.10
For eleven churches are working toward a consensus on lectionary readings11
and eventual revision of OLM and all OLM-based
lectionaries in order to produce a common lectionary. Furthermore, it
is stated that this is what we have done and that we are committed to bring
our new OLM-based lectionary into conformity with the new, new
lectionary, whenever it appears.12
Evidently, these OLM-based lectionaries are not identical
except in their common shape and approach to the public reading of the
Bible.
The Introduction to the BAS lectionary
argues the virtues of ecumenical endeavour. It states that lectionary
revision through ecumenical agreement on common patterns fosters Christian
unity and adds to the richness of Christian experience.13
However, while the post-Second Vatican Council lectionary has formed the
basis of ecumenical co-operation, there are a number of lectionaries which
are similar, but not identical.14
Thus, what began as agreement on common patterns seems to have become
agreement on identical practice, which agreement will eventually be reached
only by continued commitment to ongoing use and revision.15
This admits that the 'common lectionary' is, at present, not common in this
strict sense of identical practice.
These introductions focus primarily on the Sunday
eucharistic lectionary. Nonetheless, some provisions are made for the
practice of daily prayer, though in ways that depart from the common prayer
tradition. The 1980 Lectionary made no provision for the daily offices
but offered a two-year cycle of weekday readings for daily eucharistic
celebrations.16
For Sundays, it allowed that if the principal service was not the eucharist
but mattins, then two of the three readings appointed for the eucharist
could be used, namely, the Old Testament lesson and the gospel, omitting the
epistle.17
It appointed no Sunday office lectionary, but provided for the use of one of
the other years of the three-year Sunday cycle when the same congregation is
present.18
No instructions are provided to indicate which one of the other years'
readings could be used for which office. Presumably, it would be left
to the discretion of the priest to decide which set of readings.19
In one church the lections for year C might be read at mattins, and year B
at evensong; in another, year B lections might be read at mattins, year C at
evensong. Such variableness makes it difficult to see how this could
be common prayer and equally, how it could be ecumenical.
The BAS surmounts some of these
difficulties by providing for a daily office lectionary20,
which at least approximates the Prayer Book tradition of the two daily
offices of Morning and Evening Prayer. It appoints three readings in a
two-year cycle.21
Unlike the common prayer practice of two lessons for both offices, the
BAS lectionary suggests the reading of two of the three lessons
in the morning, and the remaining one in the evening.22
Should one persist in the older practice, provision is made to use the Old
Testament lesson from the readings for the next year.23
The failure to appoint an Old Testament lesson for
evensong means more than mere short-changing on evensong. It also
considerably weakens the connection between the two daily offices. In
the 1962 Prayer Book, for instance, the Old Testament lessons follow in
course through both offices.24
In this way the Reformed intent behind the construction of the two daily
offices, namely, to read through the greater part of the Old Testament in
the course of a year, may be realized. On the other hand, the
shortened pericopes for the offices and the lack of a complete set of
evensong propers in the new lectionary mean that the greater part of the
Bible cannot be read through in the course of a year.25
In general, the proposed revisions to the offices
forsake two important features of the common prayer tradition: first, the
reading through the greater part of the Old Testament at least once, and the
New Testament more than once, in the course of a year, and second, the
reading of two lessons at both of the two daily offices of Morning and
Evening Prayer by which this project, central to the overall Prayer Book
pattern of sanctification, could be realized. The claim of the new
lectionaries to present a greater amount of scripture to be read on a
regular basis than has ever been in our tradition pertains entirely to the
eucharistic lectionary with its twofold provision of three readings, through
the addition of an Old Testament lesson, and a three-year cycle of readings.
But even this merely quantitative assertion must be seriously questioned.27
The 1980 Introduction makes the additional remarkable
claim that the three-year Sunday lectionary "allows the presentation of all
major scriptural themes &# 8212; something that had not been possible before
with either the Sunday eucharistic or office lectionaries."28
How can such a claim be upheld? The Prayer Book office lectionary reads
through the Bible at least once in the course of a Year.29
The Sunday office lectionary appoints a set of two readings for both Morning
and Evening Prayer according to a two-year cycle;30
the eucharistic lectionary presents the ordered sequence of saving doctrine
and the moral and practical application of the same.31
We must ask what major scriptural themes are excluded from this Prayer Book
programme. Major scriptural themes all major scriptural themes -
would surely concern all that pertains to salvation.32
Thus, such a claim suggests that the Prayer Book lectionary actually fails
to present all that is necessary to salvation. Such a claim is clearly
unwarranted.
The BAS Introduction suggests as well
that the daily office lectionary can be used at weekday celebrations of the
eucharist for which no readings are provided in the lectionary.33
But what does this mean for those who say their offices and attend one or
more weekday celebrations? Moreover, the BAS lectionary
provides another set of weekday readings which in the 1980 Lectionary
were intended for use at weekday celebrations of the Holy Eucharist.34
They are now allowed for use either at the offices or the eucharist. Consequently, there may be in use two different daily office lectionaries,
both of which may be also used at daily celebrations of the eucharist. But
beyond even these provisions the BAS Introduction announces a
third: "a shortlist of psalms and readings for use as required, e.g.,
at offices on days when the daily office lectionary has been used at the
eucharist, in time of haste, etc."35
Thus, with the adoption for use of the Book of
Alternative Services, the practice of daily common prayer has been
seriously undermined. Only the Prayer Book remains to provide a
schedule of intended common readings for the daily offices: the BAS
options mean the forsaking of this significant dimension of common prayer.
No doubt these revisions are impelled by pastoral concern, but it is
pastoral concern for the expedient at the expense and through the forgetting
of pastoral concern for sanctification.
No doubt, as is urged, these resources require creative
imagination for use that will avoid confusion and needless repetition.36
They put considerable onus on the priest while allowing for considerable
divergence in practice from parish to parish, from diocese to diocese, and
between sister churches within the Anglican communion. It is again
difficult to see how this can further ecumenical relations even in the sense
of identical practice which the revisers so strongly urge. It
certainly means the loss of common prayer.37
The 1980 Introduction sets forth the supposed
limitations of the Prayer Book eucharistic lectionary. It acknowledges
that, prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was a largely common
eucharistic lectionary among Anglicans, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.38
It argues, however, that it wasn't quite common enough and that it wasn't
common by intent, only by accident.39
Their common source was the lectionaries of the middle ages which entered
the sixteenth century liturgical books with little revision.40
We are told that both parish priests and biblical scholars have criticized
these texts.41
It claims that "the two readings at the Sunday
eucharist are usually quite independent of one another (despite the valiant
efforts of many preachers to discover a common theme)."42
So much for the Anglican divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
So much for the homiletical and commentary tradition within Anglicanism.
So much for the homiletical and devotional tradition of the Fathers, the
Medievals, the Reformers, and the Counter-Reformers.43
Valiant but misguided, they have been dismissed with parenthetical ease.
If that were not enough, moreover, it goes on to say that "in their present
form the readings in the lectionary stand as landmarks of the erosion of the
place of Scripture in the worship of the Church and of the triumph of the
city of Rome in the development of Western liturgy."44
We can, perhaps, admire the polemical vigour and lively use of metaphor in
these astounding assertions. But beyond mere contentiousness, they are
without foundation.
More parenthetical discrediting follows: first, the
readings are all much shorter than the original and there are two rather
than three for which Rome is the cause; and second, "the selection of a
number of readings is based on word plays on the dedication or topographical
surroundings of the Roman stational church in which the readings were first
appointed for use. "45
These claims seriously distort the empirical observations and speculations
of historical and liturgical scholarship. (See Appendix).
The BAS Introduction is somewhat more
restrained in tone but argues mainly the same points. It suggests that
there was a system of continuous reading at the eucharist which was
supplanted "by a more arbitrary approach to selection, based not only on the
themes of the day or season, but even on the themes of nearby festivals of
local import."46
It speculates that the readings in the Trinity season are unrelated because
of their dislocation from their original order.47
It goes on to say, "it is difficult not to conclude that this scheme of
readings, with its scanty use of the Old Testament and unrepresentative
approach to the New Testament, provided a limited base for education in the
Bible."48
Thus, this Introduction presents a tamer, less inflammatory version of the
1980 Introduction, but at base remains tendentious and irresponsible.
(See Appendix).
The BAS Introduction goes on to praise
Cranmer's work on the offices: "Since the offices became the most frequently
attended services on Sundays for a long period in Anglican history, the
shortcomings of the eucharistic readings were mitigated."49
This is to damn Cranmer with faint praise. It assumes, without
demonstration, the shortcomings of the eucharistic lectionary; it ignores
the relation between the offices and the eucharist; it overlooks the
coherence of the whole programme of the use of scripture in the common
prayer tradition; it asserts the primacy of one form of eucharistic piety
(Anglo-Catholic) while disparaging another (Evangelical).50
What is going on here? The arguments assume three
things, 1 think: first, one service (the eucharist in place of mattins,
eucharist, and evensong); second, three readings from scripture; and third,
the self-evident truth of the superiority of continuous reading. In
ignorance of the elements of common prayer, they assume what they advocate:
one service, the Holy Eucharist,51
with three scripture readings one from the Old Testament, two from the New
Testament and a course of semi-continuous readings, at least for certain
parts of the year."
What about the ecumenical argument? If adopting the new
lectionary means the loss or destruction of our common prayer tradition,
which is our defining character and principal contribution to the Church
Universal, then how exactly is it ecumenical?
In my view, both arguments assume the loss of common
prayer. They show ignorance of the place of the lectionary in the
common prayer tradition. They show ignorance of its logic and
coherence. They show contempt for its antiquity. They
deliberately overlook its development." In short, they attempt to persuade
us to adopt the new by discrediting the old.
Part II
The Ordo Lectionum Missae (OLM), 1969, is
the basis of the new proposed lectionary. For Roman Catholics, it
represents the endeavour to establish a more abundant, more various and more
fitting reading of Holy Scripture at the Mass than what has been available
to them in their tradition.54
It provides three lessons for Sundays and feast days; an Old Testament
reading, an epistle (or lesson from Revelation), and a gospel.55
It is based on a three-year cycle:56
years A, B and C, which are also characterized by the synoptic gospel
principally read in that year. The principles which regulate the order
of reading are thematic harmony and semicontinuous reading.57
One or the other principle is followed according to the time of the year.58
The principle of harmonisatio ex themate is generally used for
Advent, Lent, and Easter; lectio semi-continua during
'ordinary time' which largely consists of what Anglicans used to know as
Ephiphanytide and Trinity season.59
OLM claims, in particular, that the Old Testament lessons are
chosen primarily on account of their correspondence with the New Testament
readings, especially with the gospel, which are read at Mass.60
In these principles of the thematic and the
semi-continuous reading of scripture, OLM attempts to contract
into one service what the common prayer tradition accomplishes through the
offices and the eucharist. The focus of OLM is entirely upon
the eucharist, which accords with the devotional practice of the Roman
Catholic Church. In order to present a greater and more various
selection of scripture at that one service, a three-year cycle of readings
has been required; even so, the whole corpus of scripture cannot be read
through entirely in the three years. At best OLM
attempts what our Prayer Book two-year Sunday office lectionary
accomplisshes by offering a representative and comprehensively complete, so
far as possible, selection of readings from the Old and New Testaments.
Even with its three-year cycle and its three lessons, OLM
cannot provide what Cranmer, the English reformers, and the subsequent
Prayer Book tradition regarded as crucial to its devotional life, namely,
the reading of the whole Bible on a yearly basis through the complementary
practice of continuous reading at the offices and doctrinally thematic
reading of the eucharist.
OLM contracts these two lectionary
principles into one by dividing the church year between specific seasons and
ordinary time.61
This results in changes to the character of the church year. In
general, it results in a loss of the overall coherence and logic of the
ecclesiastical year as that came to be more fully developed in the western
tradition and, most especially, in the reformed tradition of the English
church. The eucharistic lectionary as it appears in the Prayer Book
offers a doctrinally comprehensive and thematically rich programme of
readings for the course of the entire year. OLM's
application of ex themate tends to reduce this seasonal
richness to a single theme, but it is the application of semi-continua
which especially results in the destruction of the doctrinal logic and
systematic completeness of the church year. This is most apparent in
the changes to the season of Epiphany, the three Sundays of pre-Lent, and
the season of Trinity which had especially been sharpened and clarified in
the Prayer Book development.62
The readings for roughly half of the church year are
ordered upon the principle semi-continua.63
Motivated by the desire to present a more abundant and more various
selection of readings, OLM substitutes what one might call a
quantitative logic for the more substantial or doctrinal logic upon which to
order the reading of scripture. OLM's endeavour is to
present a greater amount, rather than the whole of scripture; nonetheless,
the force of the semi In the principle lectio
semi-continua must be grasped. This principle often applies to
all three readings in ordinary time; for, despite OLM's claim
that the reading from the Old Testament is placed in harmony with the
gospel, in practice, the Old Testament reading often follows a qualified
semi-continuous course, at least in the BAS OLM-based
lectionary.
The Old Testament readings are necessarily selected
excerpts from books of the Old Testament. In year A, for instance,
Genesis is read semi-continuously from the ninth Sunday in ordinary time
through to the thirteenth Sunday in ordinary time; the passages, which are
rarely whole chapters, are excerpted in order from chapters 12, 22, 25, 28,
and 32.65
The liberal use of semi-continuous reading from the New
Testament is even more problematic, and takes two forms. One form is
the rather extended practice of simply excluding certain verses within
chapters.66
The other is the lack of a complete reading of any gospel.67
Though there are a possible thirty-four Sundays in ordinary time, not one of
the gospels is read continuously or semi-continuously through to Its
conclusion. Perhaps nowhere is this more striking than with the
shortest and most succinct of all the gospels, St. Mark's gospel, which is
read semi-continuously, but not through to its conclusion. The course
of reading does not progress beyond verse 44 of chapter 12.
In year B of the three-year cycle, John's gospel is
used in the OLM-based lectionaries as a companion piece to
Mark's gospel. The project of semi-continuous reading is thus
interrupted from the seventeenth to the twenty-second Sunday in ordinary
time by a series of readings from the sixth chapter of John's gospel the
bread of life discourse which would seem to suggest the entrance of a
eucharistical theme in the midst of the semi-continuous course of Mark.68
What occurs here, however, is an attempted collapsing
into one of the thematic and the semi-continuous principles under the
dominance of modern biblical criticism. First, evidently some biblical
critics question the place of John 6 in the sequence of John's gospel; thus,
it is here removed from its gospel context and presented in utter isolation
from its order.69
Second, under the sway of the synoptic problem, a parallel between John's
gospel and the synoptic gospels is here thought to obtain.70
In such a view John 6 picks up what is regarded as the original and primary
pre-gospel narrative order, which both Mark 6-8 and Matthew 14-16 convey
the feeding of the multitude, the walking on the water, and Peter's
confession and which Luke 9 also presents with the single omission of the
walking on the water. Perhaps we have here the emergence of the gospel
of Q in the lectionary! Those who have sought to account for the rationale
of the common lectionary observe that "whatever may be the relation of
John's Gospel to the Synoptics, at least at this point we have a tradition
that had already forged three stories into one narrative prior to the work
of the Four Evangelists."71
St. John's gospel, reserved primarily for use in Lent
and Eastertide, is also not read in its entirety over three years, even
though it sometimes forms the gospel for each of the Sundays in the
three-year cycle. Three whole chapters are omitted altogether
chapters 5, 7, and 8, though in year A, verses 37-39 of chapter 7 are
provided as an optional gospel reading for the Feast of
Pentecost. Chapter eight is probably excluded because of the dominance of
the critical view that 7:53-8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery,
does not belong to John's gospel, the pericope being absent from the most
ancient manuscripts, though included in later texts. It nonetheless,
of course, remains part of the canonical scriptures of the Church, and in
its present place. In some instances, the sequence of verses in a
given chapter are followed only on the same Sunday in all three years; for
example, on Easter IV, John 10:1-10 is read in year A, John 10:11-18 in year
B, and John 10:22-30 in year C.72
The changes to Holy Week are particularly significant.
They constitute a considerable departure from the Prayer Book practice of
reading the Passion from all four evangelists each year during Holy Week.
Holy Week begins with Palm Sunday. Gospel
lections from the Synoptics, plus a Johannine option for year A, are
provided for the Liturgy of the Palms: year A, Matthew 21:1-11; year B, Mark
11:1-11 or John 12:12-16; and year C, Luke 19:28-40. The gospel
readings for the Palm Sunday eucharist attempt over a three-year cycle what
the Prayer Book provides yearly through the measured rhythm of Holy Week.
The OLM-based BAS appoints on Palm Sunday a
different Passion narrative from the Synoptics for each year. In year
A, Matthew 26:14-27:66 is appointed to be read; in year B, Mark 14:1-15:47
is appointed; and in year C, Luke 22:14-23:56. The provision of gospel
lections for the Liturgy of the Palms, however, means the allowance and
provision for much shorter readings at the Palm Sunday eucharist for each
year. Thus Matthew 27:11-54, Mark 15:1-39, and Luke 23:1-49 are
appointed as options.73
In all three years of the three-year cycle, readings
from St. John's gospel are appointed for the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday
of Holy Week at the Holy Eucharist: in order, John 12:1-11, John 12:20-36,
and John 13:21-30. On Maundy Thursday, different gospel readings are
provided for each year. In year A, and whenever the ceremony of the
pedilavium is performed, the gospel appointed is John 13:1-15; in
year B, Mark 14:12-26; and in year C, Luke 22:7-20. The traditional
rendering of John's passion (John 18:1-19:42) remains for the gospel lection
on Good Friday in all three years. A shorter reading, however, is
provided as an option - John 18:17-30.74
The OLM-based readings for Holy Week
contrast sharply with the provisions of the Prayer Book. While all
lectionary systems focus upon the reading of the Passion of our Lord, no
lectionary succeeds in the provision of such a thorough and so concentrated
and complete a reading of all four gospel accounts of our Lord's Passion as
the Prayer Book. Such a provision, moreover, serves to highlight the
intimate relation between the offices and the eucharist as understood in the
Prayer Book programme of sanctification.
In the Prayer Book lectionary, Matthew 26 in its
entirety is appointed for the second lesson at Morning Prayer on Palm
Sunday, followed immediately in course by Matthew 27 which is read as the
gospel at the Holy Eucharist. The eucharistic gospel for Holy Monday is Mark
14, followed by Mark 15 on Holy Tuesday. Luke 22 provides the gospel
for Holy Wednesday day, and Luke 23 for Maundy Thursday. John 18:1-32
is appointed for the second lesson at Morning Prayer on Good Friday, John
18: 33-19 :37 at the communion, and John 19: 38-end provides the second
lesson at Evening Prayer on Good Friday.75
The Passion Narratives are presented in their fullness and completeness.
No accommodations are made for shorter readings. The Prayer Book, as
Geoffrey Willis observes, "gives a clear and complete reading in sequence."76
Since one of the admitted principles of the OLM-based
lectionaries is lectio semi-continua, the omission of whole
chapters, the exclusion of whole passages within chapters, and the truncated
reconstruction of scriptural texts, is most unfortunate, especially in a
three-year cycle of readings. No doubt, the brevity of the pericopes
accounts in large part for these lacunae. The result is
an unsatisfactory reading of the gospel even in this three-year cycle.
OLM invokes pastoral reasons for shortened pericopes and for
avoiding difficult biblical texts, partly, it is claimed, because they
present the highest literary problems, critical or exegetical presumably
according to the criteria of modern biblical criticism and partly because
they are too difficult to be understood by the people.77
The application of lectio semi-continua
means a necessary loss of unity to the lessons since the Old Testament
lesson, the epistle, and the gospel are often each read semi-continuously.
It can only be by accident and not by intent that they would bear any
relation to each other. While one of the main features of the new
eucharistic lectionary is the appointment of an Old Testament lesson, the
restricted form of this semi-continuous reading results in an haphazard and
unsatisfactory treatment of the Old Testament. The application of
lectio ex themate has equally not met with success owing to its
overly simplistic use as a kind of proof text to the New Testament.
Anglicans have sometimes expressed discontent with the
Sunday office lectionary in our Prayer Book, partly because of the enormous
difficulties of providing regular Sunday worship in all points of a
multi-point parish, and partly because of the expectations placed upon
people to remember from Sunday to Sunday exactly where they are in a
biblical narrative or argument. The new lectionary, at least in
ordinary time, would appear to expect people to move more-or-less
seriatim through epistles, gospels, and, rarely, books of the Old
Testament, from Sunday to Sunday. But how practical an approach is
this? Can one really expect people to get a sense of the movement and unity
of a gospel or epistle or Old Testament narrative? How is that possible when
the readings are spread out over many Sundays in ordinary time, including
the lengthy irruption in the midst of ordinary time for the necessary
observance of Lent and Eastertide, from which one is meant to take up whence
one left off? Or is it really allowed that the gospels, for instance, do
have an integrity and a unity to them? For, as has already been observed,
OLM relies heavily upon modern biblical criticism, the essential
premiss of which is the separation between scripture and doctrine.78
The new eucharistic liturgies would appear to re-enforce this premiss in the
current fashion for placing the Creed after the sermon, rather than after
the gospel.79
The inclusion of an Old Testament lesson and psalms in
the eucharistic lectionary, however, does have its attractiveness. For
Anglicans it would represent not so much a new thing as an additional and
extended use of the Old Testament to that which is already present in the
overall structure of the lectionary and in the structure of the public
worship of the Church. Psalms, for instance, have been provided for
use at the eucharist. In 1549 the introit psalm was conveniently printed
with the collect, epistle and gospel of the day.80
Our 1962 Canadian Prayer Book appoints but does not print an introit and
gradual psalm.81
The Decalogue and the Summary of the Law already provide some relation to
the Old Testament at the eucharist. Nonetheless, an Old Testament lesson
would make a welcome addition to the propers of the day. But surely
this could be done without forsaking our well-ordered and comprehensive
eucharistic lectionary; surely this could be done within the common prayer
tradition of the doctrinal use of scripture.
An Old Testament lesson could be chosen in accord with
the logic of the propers of the day and the season, as has already been done
in the English Alternative Services: First Series (SPCK 1965).
This drew upon a table of Old Testament lessons appended to the 1960
Book of Common Prayer of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and
Ceylon. It provides an Old Testament lesson for each Sunday and holy
day and where, in 1662 onwards, the 'epistle' had been an Old Testament
lesson, it provides a new epistle.82
This work could provide the basis for a similar project in Canada. It
would mean not the loss of the doctrinal integrity of our lectionary, but
its enhancement. The provision of an Old Testament lesson could well
be made within rather than, as with the adoption of OLM,
outside the common prayer tradition.
The application of lectio ex themate in
the OLM lectionary presents additional problems about the
choice of the themes and the selection of readings appropriate to the theme.
The choice is not always doctrinally comprehensive; it is sometimes
restrictive. The theme does not always apply consistently to all three
readings. The connection between the readings can sometimes be no more
than the simple recurrence of a single word.
The observations of those who have produced homiletical
aids on the common lectionary are most instructive. While often
commenting usefully and thoughtfully on the particular pericopes, the
commentators in Preaching the New Common Lectionary (1984) are
unable to ignore the deficiencies of the thematic connections between the
periscopes.
The theme for the Lenten lections in year B is
covenant.83
While the first Sunday provides a kind of thematic unity in all three
readings the Genesis story of the post-diluvian covenant with Noah, the
reference in 1 Peter to the flood, and the Marcan account of Christ's
baptism84,
the theme appears in the remaining Sundays only in a very general and
inconsistent way.85
It principally occurs through the Old Testament lessons for the first,
second, third, and fifth Sundays of Lent; it is submerged on the fourth.86
The second Sunday manages a connection between the Old
Testament lesson, psalm reading, and epistle, but as the commentators
observe, "it is not easy to recognize a traditional or thematic connection
between these three readings and the Gospel lections."87
On that Sunday two possible gospel lections are provided,, but neither of
the options are clearly related to the other lections. The
commentators make the most of the particular pericopes for the third Sunday
of Lent, but do not attempt to argue their relation, being content to
comment instead that "specific connections between the Decalogue in Exodus
20 and the New Testament readings for the third Sunday of Lent are difficult
to discern."88
The thematic relation between the Old Testament lesson and the New Testament
lessons for the fourth Sunday of Lent also seems weak, possibly appearing
more by way of contrast than by means of connection. Interestingly
enough, it departs from the theme of covenant only to return to some
semblance of the older lenten themes. The commentators are moved to
understand these pericopes, especially the New Testament readings, in the
light of the ancient character of this day, which was known as Laetare
Sunday, even though the propers are not the same.89
The titles 'Refreshment Sunday' and 'Mothering Sunday' which popular piety
in the English Church affixed to the fourth Sunday in Lent, on the basis of
the propers, can no longer apply.
The attempted combination of harmonisatio ex
themate and lectio semi-continua for the eucharistic
readings has resulted in a weakening of the doctrinal strength and rhythm of
the ordered pattern of salvation once presented through the course of the
whole church year. The doctrinal comprehensiveness of the older
eucharistic lectionary has been replaced with the looseness of the new.
The common prayer tradition of the reading of scripture as a doctrinal
instrument of salvation has been usurped by the hypotheses of modern
biblical criticism about the structure, order and integrity of biblical
books. In some sense, no doubt, the doctrinal elements may all be
there, but in a much less coherent, much less systematic, and much less
comprehensive way. The loss of the integrity of the seasons of
Epiphany and the pre-Lenten Sundays Septuagesima,
Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima is particularly
regrettable. The changes to the Trinity season are equally
unfortunate.
Whatever the advantages of the new lectionary for our
Roman Catholic brethren, if indeed it means the opening out of the
scriptures more largely to them, OLM does not emerge out of
the common prayer tradition, and remains incompatible with it. It
represents for Anglicans not only the loss of the coherence and doctrinal
comprehensiveness of the Prayer Book eucharistic lectionary, but also the
loss of the fundamental and intimate relation between the offices and the
eucharist.
Furthermore, while it may be possible for Rome to make
such changes without impairing her doctrinal character, because that is
resident not primarily in the liturgy but in the papal magisterium,90
the Anglican church can hardly venture upon the OLM enterprise
without forsaking her essential and defining character, which is common
prayer and its concrete embodiment in the Liturgy which is, properly
speaking, the entire Book of Common Prayer.91
Overall, OLM and OLM-based
lectionaries do not arise out of a tradition of common prayer and are
inimical to that tradition. They presume and provide for a pattern of
spirituality that remains apart from the Prayer Book pattern of
sanctification. Most significant, from the standpoint of the common
prayer tradition, is the weakening of the doctrinal logic of the
ecclesiastical year as that has come to be developed in the Anglican church.
Central to that development and fundamental for the practice of common
prayer is the use of scripture as a doctrinal instrument of salvation.
Part III
We come now to consider the Prayer Book lectionary.
In one sense the reasons urged in the Canadian Church for adopting the new
lectionary and the principles upon which it is founded compel us to such an
enterprise.
Though for no other cause, yet for this; that
posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to
pass away as in a dream, there shall be for man's information extant thus
much concerning the present state of the Church of God established amongst
us.92
So wrote Hooker in defense of the doctrine and polity
of the Church of England against her detractors and promoters of radical
projects in his day. And, certainly, today there has been a forgetting
of the order of the Prayer Book lectionary, and a forgetting of the pattern
of common prayer within which the lectionary is set; things have been
permitted to pass away as in a dream. But in another sense, and
perhaps a profounder one, we are compelled to this enterprise because in
God's providence there is a remembering, a discovering as new something
which is old, a re-thinking of older things but in a fresher, more vigorous,
and newer light. After the waters of Lethe, we drink of the stream of
Eunoλ.93
The reading of scripture not only forms the basis of
common prayer but also belongs to its essential structure and purpose.
The lectionary functions within the Prayer Book's systematic and coherent
programme of sanctification which is firmly built upon the principle of
justification. Thus Hooker writes:
There is a glorifying righteousness of man in the
world to come: and there is a justifying and a sanctifying righteousness
here. The righteousness, wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to
come, is both perfect and inherent. That whereby we are sanctified,
inherent, but not perfect.94
Scripture is a doctrinal instrument of salvation
because by it we learn that our justification is not in us, but in Christ,
and that our sanctification is our being in Christ and His being in us.
The reading of scripture increases in us the knowledge of divine things; it
is an instrument "to work the knowledge of salvation in the hearts of men."95
The lectionary falls within the programme of sanctification for the order of
reading seeks to establish and to nourish within us that saving doctrine of
Christ that "being made free from sin and made servants unto God, ye may
have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life" (Rom.
6:22).
The first homily in The First Book of Homilies
(1562) urges the same teaching. Entitled "A Fruitful Exhortation to
the Reading and Knowledge of Holy Scripture", it provides a useful
illustration of this understanding of the reading of scripture in the life
of the Church.96The
homily teaches that scripture contains all truth and doctrine necessary for
our justification and salvation, and that the right and perfect way unto God
is through the knowledge of Holy Scripture.97
This knowledge of God and of the end of man through the knowledge of Holy
Scripture means that scripture "ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes,
in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all in our hearts."98
"For the Scripture of God is the heavenly meat of our souls; the hearing and
keeping of it maketh us blessed, sanctifieth us, and maketh us holy; it
turneth our souls; it is a light lantern unto our feet. It is a sure,
steadfast and everlasting instrument of salvation",99
ordained for the purpose of our everlasting life.100
The reading of scripture builds upon the sure and substantial foundation of
Christ,101
God's Word "which (by continual use of reading of holy Scripture, and
diligent searching of the same) is deeply printed and engraven in the heart,
at length turneth almost into nature."102
For "in reading of God's word, he most profiteth ... that is most
turned into it, that is most inspired with the Holy Ghost, most in his heart
and life altered and changed into that thing which he readeth."103
The lectionary is the means by which the purpose of
scripture as a doctrinal instrument of salvation may be realized within the
Prayer Book programme of sanctification. The lectionary orders the
reading of scripture according to the pattern of doctrine. Such is the
basis of the coherence of the lectionary even throughout its long history.
That coherence and logic of the lectionary emerges in part through the
consideration of its historical development.
The history of the English lectionary concerns the
lectionary in its comprehensive sense, with principal regard for both the
daily office lectionary and the developments in the Sunday office
lectionary. The eucharistic lectionary is fundamental to the overall
coherence of the lectionary and must be given special attention. For
the common prayer tradition, the daily office lectionary, the Sunday office
lectionary, and the eucharistic lectionary form a comprehensive whole with
each part dependent upon and informing the other. They are
fundamentally connected, and it is in their relation that they form an
integral part in the programme of sanctification. The doctrinal
foundation of the lectionary appears most explicitly in the eucharistic
lectionary which, in some sense, provides the logical centre around which
the other two revolve.
The eucharistic lectionary itself is, for the most
part, of remarkable antiquity; forged in the crucible of patristic doctrine,
its more systematic character begins to develop in the early Middle Ages,
passing into England in the form of the Sarum Breviary, though certain
western and Roman uses had been present in England since the Gregorian
mission of Augustine of Canterbury. The actual manuscript tradition
from which the lectionary emerges dates from the late seventh and early
eighth centuries.104
The Prayer Book tradition sharpens and completes the systematic order and
coherence of the eucharistic lectionary to form a comprehensive pattern of
doctrine. The daily office lectionary and the Sunday office lectionary
are ultimately comprehended within that doctrinal pattern.
The practice of reading scripture in the Church
originates in the Synagogue worship of Israel, which practice the early
church took over and adapted for Christian use.105
The practice of daily reading seems to have begun in the
eremitic tradition of the East from which it entered coenobitic forms of
monasticism in the East and West; in the West the practice also appears in
the religious establishments attached to various churches in Rome.106
The commentary tradition of the Prayer Book frequently quotes Cassian for
the practice of reading Old Testament and New Testament lessons at Morning
and Evening Prayer, but their origin can also be seen in the Bible readings
at the Vigil services and at the Missa Catechumenorum.107
Further developments in the Hours services of the monasteries contributed to
the background of the daily office and Sunday office lectionaries of the
English Church.108
Within the tradition of monastic services it was
mattins or nocturns (the medieval night office) which alone provided regular
lessons.109
These lessons drew upon three sources: first, the Bible, in its sets of
different kinds of books - the law, the prophets, the epistles, and the
gospels; second, patristic homilies and commentaries; and third, the lives
of the saints.110
While it had been the intent of the Benedictine rule to read through the
greater part of the Bible in the course of the year, this intent
increasingly failed to be realized, partly through the encroachment of a
greater number of saints' days upon the regular course of reading, and
partly through the development of the breviary.111
The medieval breviary collected the various liturgical books into one book
of devotion for the use of clergy and religious according to their rules.
Such as enterprise, especially when it was desired to have a portable
breviary, resulted in a tendency to fix particular lessons to particular
days, and to shorten considerably the length of the passages.112
In any event, the continuous reading of scripture was considerably hindered
by the frequency of saints' days and holy days, each with their proper
lessons, by the disjointed, discontinuous and incomplete form of the lessons
themselves in the breviary, and by the extended use of non-biblical
material.113
By the sixteenth century, dissatisfaction with the
breviary prompted reform, of which Cardinal Quinones' Breviary of the Holy
Cross (1535) was the first instance. It was a rather ingenious, but
nonetheless radical reform which attempted to establish a new scheme
providing principally for the systematic reading of scripture. It
endeavoured to read through both the Old Testament and the New Testament in
the course of the year by appointing three lessons for each day: first, from
the Old Testament; second, from the New Testament; and third, from either
the life of a saint (upon a saint's day) or else from the epistles.114
This Santa Croce Breviary initially grew in acceptance, partly
owing to its shortness, and partly due to its primary focus on scripture.
It concurred admirably with the desire expressed by Cardinal Girolamo
Seripando, the Prior General of the Augustinians at the Council of Trent,
that "in Missal and Breviary none but the words of Holy Scripture."115
Ultimately, however, the Quignonium breviary failed to become the reformed
breviary of the Roman Church. It was left for its influence to be felt
elsewhere in England, and upon Thomas Cranmer.
Cranmer's aim was to provide a regular order for the
reading of Holy Scripture for the purpose of instruction, not just of the
clergy and religious, but for the whole church, clergy and laity alike.
Scripture forms the basis of common prayer. The frequency of saints'
days observations, the discontinuity in the readings, the overgrowth of
non-biblical material for lessons, and the sheer complexity of the rules
determining what was to be read, such that "many times there was more
business to find out what should be read, than to read it when it was found
out",116
contributed to the obscuring of what the reformers so clearly saw must be
made plain and open, and, moreover, must be plain and open for everyone,
"that the people (by daily hearing of holy Scripture read in the Church)
might continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the
more inflamed with the love of his true religion."117
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation" declare the Anglican formularies.118
It was essential that things necessary for salvation be openly declared unto
all. The public reading of Holy Scripture, which is to say, the public
or common order by which scripture is appointed to be read, makes us wise
unto salvation by the steady increase in us of the knowledge of God.
Thus Cranmer had to go farther than the Breviarum Romanum Quignonium
in providing for a systematically complete reading of scripture for
everyone. That going further was the development of common prayer
which was grounded upon the open and regular publication of those things
pertaining to our salvation. It was not a matter of reforming a
breviary; it was the task of establishing common prayer, the basis of which
was the reading of scripture as a doctrinal instrument of salvation.
As Geoffrey Willis points out
Even if the daily office of the breviary which is
based on the ecclesiastical year, were not interrupted by any immoveable
feasts having proper lessons, it would still not provide for the reading of
the whole of scripture, as its lessons are too short, and also the variable
lessons are confined to the night office.119
In the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI, 1549, Cranmer
contracted the medieval hours into two services, mattins and evensong, each
with two lessons, one from the Old Testament and the other from the New
Testament. This remains the distinctive character of the offices in
the common prayer tradition. The lectionary for these offices was
based not upon the ecclesiastical year, with its moveable dates of Easter
and other feasts, but upon the more fixed character of the civil year.
Cranmer's purpose was to provide for a plain and simple system for the
complete and continuous reading of scripture in the course of the year.120
He reduced the number of holy days and, at least with the fixed or
immoveable feasts such as the Christmas cycle and saints' days, he found a
way of handling them without the loss of any readings from the regular
course.
Few holy days were provided with a complete set of
proper lessons; first and second lessons were appointed for the festivals of
Christmas, the Circumcision, the Epiphany, Easter Day, and Trinity Sunday,
and for the feasts of the Nativity of St. John and Evangelist and All
Saints. The remaining holy days either had no proper lessons at all,
or only one, invariably a second lesson. The Feast of the Holy
Innocents was the only saint's day exception, having been provided with a
first lesson at mattins (Jer. 31). When there was no proper
lesson provided, the lesson from the regular course would be read.
The proper lessons were carefully chosen with a view
towards the day itself and/or the season. Cranmer showed a fine sense
for the relation between the Old and New Testaments in appointing proper
first lessons (id est, Old Testament lessons) for Holy
Wednesday evensong through the Easter Even mattins, and in appointing proper
second lessons (id est, New Testament lessons) for the offices
of Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday. The proper first lessons for
those days in Holy Week were the ancient lessons for the services of
Tenebrae and Good Friday.121
Lamentations was appointed for evensong on Wednesday, mattins and evensong
on Thursday, and mattins on Easter Even, while Genesis 22 and Isaiah 53 were
appointed for the mattins and evensong of Good Friday.
Cranmer's daily office lectionary allowed for the
reading of most of the Old Testament and Apocrypha once, and for the reading
of the New Testament, excluding Revelation, thrice in the course of the
year. The Old Testament was read seriatim at the first
lessons of both mattins and evensong, beginning in January with Genesis.
Also beginning in January was the course of New Testament reading, which was
divided between mattins and evensong. At mattins only the gospels,
beginning with Matthew, and Acts were read, while at evensong the epistles,
beginning with Romans, were read. At both mattins and evensong, the
cycle would be repeated three times.
In the case of both the Old Testament and the New
Testament, the readings followed the order of the books in the Bible, with
one very important exception: Isaiah was not read in its place in the
biblical order but was reserved for late November through December so as to
attend the season of Advent. Bishop Anthony Sparrow observes: "the
Prophet Esay being the most Evangelical Prophet most plainly prophesying of
Christ, is reserved to be read a little before Advent."122
The retention of this ancient practice anticipates in a way the eventual
return of the lectionary to the order of the ecclesiastical year.
Thus Cranmer's 1549 lectionary provides the basis for
all subsequent lectionary developments within the common prayer tradition by
establishing the two offices of mattins and evensong, by appointing two
lessons, an Old Testament and a New Testament lesson, for each office, by
composing a comprehensive and continuous system of scripture reading based
upon the order of the civil year. The daily office lectionary remained
unchanged in these three essentials until the revisions of 1871 and 1922,
which in 1922 resulted in an important modification: namely, the ordering of
the lectionary upon the ecclesiastical year rather than upon the civil year.
In some sense that was the logical outcome of a development which had its
earliest beginnings in the 1559 Prayer Book lectionary.
In the matter of the daily office lectionary, the
second Prayer-Book of Edward VI, 1552, made only minor changes and
alterations, such as replacing the Lamentations readings in Holy Week with
lessons from Hosea, Daniel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah.123
Indeed, until 1871 all the subsequent Prayer Book revisions left the
essential structure of Cranmer's 1549 lectionary intact, content to advise
only minor alterations.124
The Elizabethan Prayer-Book of 1559 marked the beginning of a new
development a post Cranmerian development.
The Cranmerian lectionaries had appointed no proper
lessons for Sundays; instead, the lessons appointed for the particular
calendar days in the month were followed. The 1559 Prayer-Book
inaugurated the process of providing proper lessons for all the Sundays,
saints' days, and holy days in the ecclesiastical year. Consequently,
those few saints' days and holy days which had been provided with proper
second lessons in the 1549 lectionary were now adorned with a full set of
propers.
The provision of first lessons for Sundays introduces
another programme of scripture reading: it marks the beginning of a Sunday
office lectionary which runs its course alongside and complementary to the
daily office lectionary. Ultimately, both are comprehended within the
doctrinal pattern of the Church year.
The propers for the Sunday offices were chosen with
regard for the character of the seasons in the ecclesiastical year.
Isaiah was read as the first lesson throughout the Sundays of Advent,
Christmas, and Epiphany, thereby complementing the reading of Isaiah
appointed in the offices during Advent and Christmas-tide. That sort
of correspondence between the Sunday office, the daily office, and the
Church year naturally furthered the desire to make the relation more
explicit for the whole year. In the 1559 Prayer-Book, Genesis was
begun to be read on Septuagesima Sunday, thereby recovering the older
patristic and medieval practice appropriate to the season and preparing the
way for the reading of Genesis in the daily office lectionary when it
eventually came to be re-ordered upon the pattern of the ecclesiastical
year.
The 1559 Prayer-Book provided proper first lessons for
all Sundays. The 1561, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books made only minor
changes, with 1662 making provision for second lessons on certain holy days.
The year 1871 marks the first major revision to the lectionary.
The 1871 lectionary was the product of a committee
under the chairmanship of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.125
In some ways this revision is more notable for what it did not do, than for
what it did. It did not complete the Sunday propers by providing
second lessons for every Sunday at both offices. It did not complete
the saints' days propers by providing second lessons. It did not
reorganize the lectionary according to the pattern of the ecclesiastical
year.
Nonetheless, it did provide some second lessons.
It did introduce a series of alternative first lessons for Sunday evensong,126
the origin, perhaps, of the year I and year II readings in our present
Prayer Book. It did provide an alternative second lesson at evensong
for those feasts which had proper second lessons. But it also
significantly altered the reading of the New Testament in the daily offices
by cancelling the division Cranmer had made in 1549 between the reading of
the gospels and Acts at mattins and the epistles at evensong. It
restored the reading of Revelation by appointing it to be read after
December 17th sequentially at Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, thereby
insuring that Revelation would be read once in the course of the year.
Whereas Cranmer's system read through the New Testament (minus Revelation)
three times in the course of the year, the 1871 lectionary read through the
New Testament twice, with the exception of Revelation, which was read once.
It sharply cut back the readings from the Apocrypha. But above all,
the 1871 lectionary gave impetus to the demand for the re-ordering of the
lectionary upon the pattern of the ecclesiastical year, rather than the
civil year. Cranmer's scheme of reading, based upon the civil or
calendar year, accomplished admirably his intent to provide for a continuous
and complete programme of scripture reading, and complemented the noble aim
of establishing the godly commonwealth, but it could not avoid the necessary
collision between the daily office system and the system of the Sunday
offices which had emerged subsequently.
The older Prayer Book commentators well understood the
doctrinal content and use of scripture both in the overall logic of the
Christian year and in the complete and continuous reading of the Bible.127
Organizing the reading of scripture according to the civil year, even taking
account of leap years, seemed the most simple and most straightforward
system for the complete reading of the greater part of the Bible in the
course of one year. It was simpler than having to contend with the
problems arising from the moveable date of Easter. The increasing
demand, however, was to unite more fully and more completely the doctrinal
pattern of the Christian year with the regular and ordered programme of
scripture. It was desired to organize the reading of scripture
according to the ecclesiastical year, instead of the civil year.
The possibility of arranging the daily office
lectionary according to the order of the Church year had been realized in
various Lutheran lectionaries of the nineteenth century and in the lrvingite
lectionary of the so-called Catholic Apostolic Church, perhaps as early as
the 1830's.128
In Anglican circles evidently the Very Reverend Provost Vernon Staley of
'Hierugia Anglicana fame had designed a proposed lectionary based
upon the order of the ecclesiastical year in his book The Revision of
the Lectionary.129
In a certain way, the main accomplishment of the 1871
lectionary was the impetus it gave towards two things: first, the
establishment of a fully developed Sunday office lectionary; and second, the
reordering of the daily office lectionary upon the principles of the
ecclesiastical year.
In Canada, the itch for Prayer Book revision began in
the 1890's, coincident with the establishment of the General Synod of Canada
in 1893.130
At first an Appendix to the Prayer Book was proposed and duly prepared under
the chairmanship of Archbishop Hollingworth Tully Kingdon of Fredericton,
assisted by Dean Partridge.131
It got so thoroughly killed at the 1905 General Synod the Rev. Dyson
Hague was said to have knocked it stiff,132
that years later no copy of it could be found, until one was discovered by
Archdeacon Frederick W. Vroom of King's College, washed up at his feet
on the shores of the St. Croix River in New Brunswick, having been carried
there by the tides of the Bay of Fundy.133
One may wonder if that isn't likely to be the fate of our present Canadian
Prayer Book - thrown up on the beach with the rest of us beached whales!
In 1911 General Synod permitted the process of Prayer
Book revision.134
The Calendar and Lectionary Committee was pan-Canadian under the
chairmanship of Archbishop Worrell of Nova Scotia.135
Between the two projects establishing a coherent and complete Sunday
office, and re-ordering the lectionary according to the course of the
ecclesiastical year the Canadian committee chose the former, rather than
the latter or both. For it was their leading principle "that the most
outstanding portions of Holy Scripture should be provided for the Sunday
lections."136
Consequently, a larger place than in any former lectionary was given to the
prophetical writings, and greater use was made of the Wisdom literature.137
But more important was the matter of the selection of the Sunday office New
Testament lections. According to Armitage, the committee determined
that from Advent to Trinity the morning lessons were to be taken from the
gospels so as to set out the story of our Lord's life; the morning lessons
from Trinity to Advent were passages in the epistles and in Revelation
chosen in accord with the teaching of the collect, epistle and gospel of the
day.138
The evening lessons from Advent to Trinity were chosen from the epistles and
Revelation according to the doctrinal character or movement of the church
season; from Trinity to Advent, gospel lections were chosen, focusing in the
main upon our Lord's teaching, deeds, and miracles.139
This lectionary was presented to General Synod in 1915
where it received approval and was circulated to the Provincial Synods for
deliberation.140
Meanwhile, in England, a committee had been formed to draw up a revised
lectionary based upon the ecclesiastical year.141
Their report came out in 1917. Back in Canada, the Provincial Synod of
the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, meeting in 1918, considered the 1915
draftbook, and among a number of recommendations and resolutions requested
"that the daily calendar be arranged upon the basis of the ecclesiastical
year rather than the civil year."142
Confronted with the English development, Archbishop
Worrell himself argued against the adoption of the 1915 Canadian in favour
of the 1918 English.143
Worrell noted that in the matter of prophetical writings, the relation of
New Testament lessons to the church season and to the epistle and gospel of
the day, and the appointment of alternative lessons, the two committees had
been working, though independent of each other, nonetheless along the same
lines.144
Worrell acknowledged that the chief weakness of the 1915 Canadian Lectionary
was that "it dealt only with Sunday lessons."145
But the principal problem of the 1915 Canadian proposal was that the
lectionary was ordered upon the civil year while, at the same time, the
Sunday propers were completed, thereby exacerbating the felt tension between
the Sunday and saints' day services and the daily offices. Thus the
1918 English lectionary, officially called the 1922 lectionary, became the
lectionary of the official 1922 Canadian Prayer Book.
The principal features of the 1922 lectionary are
outlined by Chairman of the Joint Committee, the Bishop of Ely, Dr.
Chase. They were twofold: first, the lectionary was based upon the
ecclesiastical year rather than the civil year; second, it provided a
complete Sunday office lectionary.146
The 1922 lectionary was a significant achievement, but it was a revision
which took place within the common prayer tradition and served to strengthen
and make more explicit the doctrinal basis of the use of scripture within
that tradition.
In the Sunday office lectionary, the reading of the Old
Testament combined the ancient custom of assigning certain books to certain
seasons with the reading of books more-or-less in course.147
Thus, on the First Sunday in Advent through to the Second Sunday after
Epiphany, passages from Isaiah are appointed. For the remaining
Sundays after Epiphany, which after the third Sunday are variable according
to the date of Easter, a series of minor prophets, beginning with Hosea, are
read. Again, following the ancient practice which the 1559 book had
also recovered, the Pentateuch was begun to be read on
Septuagesima Sunday. The historical books followed in their
biblical order from the first Sunday after Trinity until the fourteenth
Sunday. The prophets Daniel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are read from the
evensong of Trinity Fourteen through to the evensong of Trinity Twenty-two.
Lessons from Proverbs are appointed for the remaining Sundays after Trinity,
three of which are variable again according to the date of Easter.148
The lectionary provided alternative first lessons for
the Sunday offices in order to promote an acquaintance with the more
unfamiliar parts of the Old Testament, and to provide occasions for readings
from the Apocrypha.149
The latter provision was subsequently removed from the Canadian 1918 Prayer
Book.150
This overall programme of alternative lessons ultimately coalesced to form
the year I/year II practice.
The appointment of Sunday office second lessons
endeavoured to combine the provision for the reading of as much of the New
Testament as possible with "variety for successive years and for
congregations differing in character. "151
Alternative second lessons were also provided.
The daily office lectionary, now based upon the
ecclesiastical year, follows more-or-less closely the Sunday office
lectionary. The reading of Isaiah and the minor prophets in the
Sundays of Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany is attended by the continuous
reading of Isaiah and the minor prophets in the daily cycle.152
With Septuagesima, the Heptateuch is begun to be
read both in the Sundays and on weekdays, followed by historical,
prophetical, and sapiential books.153
The weekday pattern of Old Testament lessons at the daily offices is of
ancient origin, reaching back to the seventh and eighth century readings at
the Roman night office.
The arrangement of New Testament lessons approximates
in some ways Cranmer's division between mattins and evensong. If at
mattins a gospel reading is used, then at evensong a lesson from either Acts
or the epistles or Revelation is read.154
The synoptic gospels are read through at least once in the course of the
year, while John is read twice.155
The logic of the seasons also obtains in the appointment of the New
Testament lessons: on the weekday evensongs between Trinity Sunday and
Trinity Eleven, readings from the synoptic gospels are chosen so as to form
a more-or-less continuous narrative of our Lord's life a harkening back to
the custom of the old gospel harmonies.156
Thereafter St. John's gospel is read. Acts is appointed for
Eastertide. The epistles of St. Paul are read not in their biblical
order, but in some sort of accord with the chronological reconstruction of
biblical criticism.157
Hebrews is appointed for Ascensiontide, beginning to be read at evensong - a
very appropriate and sound provision.158
It constitutes one of the many examples of the coherence of the daily office
lectionary and the Sunday office lectionary within the comprehensive
doctrinal structure of the ecclesiastical year.
The 1922 lectionary forms the basis of the subsequent
Prayer Book lectionaries, having brought together into a more explicit and
more comprehensive unity the daily office, Sunday office, saints' days, and
eucharistic lectionaries. It forms the basis in essentials for the
lectionary contained in our 1962 Prayer Book. That lectionary,
however, was once again not a product of the Canadian Church, for with some
exceptions, it is, in fact, the revised English lectionary of 1955 which we
adopted in our 1959 revision.159
The 1955 lectionary remained in essentials that of the
1922 lectionary, but some changes were introduced which deserve comment.
They assist in showing the instructional and formative character of the
Prayer Book lectionary tradition, especially in its now fully developed
form. The most interesting development appears in the daily office
readings for the early part of the Trinity season.
In the eighth century, the season after Pentecost had
not taken systematic shape according to the ecclesiastical year, but was
loosely arranged according to the Sundays and weeks of each month.160
It provided a general arrangement, however, for the reading in order of the
four books of Kings, Chronicles, and the sapiential books for June, July and
August (roughly), and then in September and October Job, Tobit, Judith,
Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Maccabees, followed in October and November by
Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.161
This ancient practice informed the 1922 lectionary which, following the
ecclesiastical year, appoints the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles
beginning in Trinity week, followed by Jeremiah, who is thought to enter
into the history at this point, then by Ezekiel as an exilic poet, followed
by the post-exilic historians Ezra and Nehemiah with chronologically
appropriate extracts from the restoration prophets Zechariah and Haggai who
are removed from the order of minor prophets after Epiphany to be inserted
here. Then follows Daniel, Esther, I Maccabees and the sapiential
books Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. The Apocryphal works
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Baruch, and Wisdom complete the Trinity season cycle.162
The 1955 lectionary has dislocated this order by
providing for the reading of Job and Proverbs at the beginning of the
Trinity season, thus placing the historical cycle, more-or-less as it was in
1922, several weeks later.163
Other changes involve inserting Ecclesiastes, I Maccabees, and
Ecclesiasticus after the historical/prophetical sequence, removing Tobit and
Baruch to the variable week of Epiphany VI, and retaining Wisdom for the
week of the Sunday Next Before Advent. The biblical order of the minor
prophets In the first four weeks after Epiphany is altered in favour of what
appears to be a historical re-ordering according to the lights of biblical
criticism.164
The placing of Job and Proverbs for the weeks
immediately following Trinity Sunday helps to emphasize the more clearly
articulated doctrinal character of the Trinity season as it has developed in
the overall Prayer Book tradition. That we should move from the
celebration and vision of God in Himself to the Old Testament sapiential
argument of the book of Job, which is concerned with the knowledge and
vision of God and that in relation to human acts, earthly circumstances, and
ultimately creation, seems most appropriate. That we then should move
to the book of Proverbs, with the concern for the practical and moral wisdom
grounded upon the fear and knowledge of God, seems equally apposite.
Together these works, seen in the divine light of the Trinity, suggest the
unity of contemplation and activity which is the truth of our life in the
Spirit.
The historical development of the lectionary shows
something of the underlying coherence and logic of the use of scripture in
our Anglican tradition. The establishment of the two daily offices,
each with two lessons (from the Old and New Testaments), the emergence of a
Sunday office lectionary, and the ordering of all the scripture readings
upon the course of the ecclesiastical year bring out more clearly the
doctrinal use of scripture. The reading of scripture is so ordered to
make us "wise unto salvation", to habituate in us things divine, and this
according to the ordered presentation of saving doctrine.
We have seen the connection and mutual dependence of
the daily office lectionary and the Sunday office lectionary. The
whole Prayer Book is composed of such interdependent parts forming a
comprehensive pattern of spirituality and devotion. We have seen the
influence of the church seasons upon the lectionaries, the increasing demand
to make explicit the order of the church year as the principle for the
reading of scripture. It remains to consider that order as it appears
both in the tradition of commentators upon the Prayer Book, and in the
eucharistic lectionary.
There is a remarkably extensive and, to my mind,
incredibly rich tradition of commentaries on the Prayer Book within our
church from the sixteenth century right through to our own day. For,
as always, there was a need to defend and to explain the Prayer Book against
detractors and malcontents, but the very excellence of the Prayer Book
itself excited comment and prompted the desire to understand its structure.165
For the most part, that tradition is very clear about
the unity, coherence, and purpose of our lectionary. Thus Thomas
Comber urges three reasons for the reading or hearing of Holy Scripture in
the daily offices of the Church: first, the excellence of scripture for that
it is "the Revelation of the whole will of God, so far as is necessary for
our Salvation"; second, God's providential care in having ordained them for
our good, adapting himself to our understanding so as to lay down "all
necessary and fundamental truths so clearly"; and third, the care of the
Church in fitting them "so to our use that there is nothing wanting to make
us wise to salvation."166
The commentators are especially clear about the
coherence of the eucharistic lectionary, which manifested so evidently a
logical and doctrinal pattern of salvation. The contemporary notion
that the collects, epistles, and gospels have no necessary connection or
relation would not be favourably entertained by these scholars.
Indeed, replies Thomas Bisse, "these old imputations cast upon it, as being
a dead letter and a heap of tautologies, can have no foundation, but in
ourselves."167
For, he explains,
Epistles and Gospels are not cast into our Liturgy
at random, or as it should happen; but are placed every one in its order,
being suited severally to their proper days, and all jointly to the Seasons,
which come between and are govern'd by these cardinal or great Festivals.168
It was the order of the Christian year, built around
these cardinal and great festivals, which gave coherence and sense to the
eucharistic propers. But what exactly was that order of the Christian
year, and what exactly was its purpose? Its purpose was to instruct by way
of commemoration, and its order was fundamentally the order of doctrine.
For the common prayer tradition, the ecclesiastical
year divides into two parts. Bishop Overall states the standard and
received view:
The whole year is distinguished into two parts; the
one to commemorate Christ's living here in earth, and the other to direct us
to live after his example. For the first part are all the Sundays,
appointed from Advent to Trinity Sunday: for the second, all the Sundays
from Trinity to Advent again.169
These two parts have their own distinctive character
which also determines the character of the Sunday eucharistic propers within
each part of the year. Thus Bishop Anthony Sparrow teaches that "the
fitness of the Epistle and Gospel for the day it belongs to, and the reason
of the choice, will plainly appear, if we observe that these holy festivals
and solemnities of the church are of two sorts; the more high days, or the
rest."170
From Advent to Trinity the Church follows the doctrinal
moments of the life of Christ. We celebrate the mysteries that belong to our
redemption; we "commemorate the signal acts or passages of our Lord in the
redemption of mankind."171
This part of the year follows a logical doctrinal sequence, passing
systematically from Christ's incarnation and nativity, circumcision,
manifestation, fasting, passion, death, resurrection and ascension, and the
sending of the Holy Ghost, to culminate gloriously in the feast of the
Blessed Trinity, which feast Thomas Bisse calls "the great Epiphany, being
the manifestation of the Three Persons, as the other Epiphany is only of the
Son."172
This progress sets before us the course of saving doctrine. "All in
the most perfect order," says Bishop Overall, "in all which we see the whole
story and course of our Saviour in manifesting himself and his divine
mysteries to the world."173
Bishop John Cosin echoes this teaching of his mentor, and emphasizes the
appearance of this doctrinal order in the eucharistic lectionary:
So that the Gospels read through all this part of
the year, have their chief end and purpose, to make us know and remember
with grateful hearts, what excellent benefits God the Father hath
communicated to us first by his Son, and then by the Holy Spirit, making us
the heirs of heaven, that before were the sons of Hell: for which
unspeakable goodness, we do most fitly end this part of the year, with
giving praise and glory to the whole blessed Trinity.
174
Sparrow further underlines this by speaking of this
whole course of high festivals as "thereby running, as it were, through a
great part of the Creed, by setting before us in an orderly manner the
highest Mysteries of our Redemption by Christ on earth, till the day he was
taken up into Heaven, with the sending down of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost."175
The second part of the year, from Trinity Sunday until
Advent, also has a distinctive character which informs the selection of the
epistles and gospels. From the great pageant of doctrine summed up and
celebrated in the feast of the blessed Trinity, the Church turns to the
inward and practical application of those saving truths. Thus Cosin
observes:
The Second part, which contains all the Sundays
after that, being for our guidance in the Peregrination that we have living
in this world, hath for it such Gospels in order appointed, as may most
easily and plainly instruct and lead us in the true paths of Christianity;
that those which are Regenerated by Christ, and Initiated in his Faith, may
know what virtues to follow, and what vices to eschew. Thus in the
First part, we are to learn the Mysteries of the Christian Religion: in the
second, we are to practise that which is agreeable to the same: For so it
behoves us, not only to know that we have no other foundation of our
Religion but Christ Jesus, born, cr
