TEC’s SCLM statement concerning inconsistencies in Holy Week liturgies

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The 2006 General Convention resolved that “the Revised Common Lectionary shall be the Lectionary of this Church, amending the Lectionary on pp. 889-921 of the Book of Common Prayer,” but did not deal with the resultant inconsistencies of pages within the Book of Common Prayer itself.

In anticipation of Holy Week 2012, the second year that the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) is required for use in The Episcopal Church, the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music recommends that congregations use the RCL lections during Holy Week 2012. In our report to the 77th General Convention, the SCLM will formally propose a resolution to remove the inconsistencies between the RCL and BCP.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • * Christian Life / Church Life • Church Year / Liturgical Seasons • Holy Week • Liturgy, Music, Worship

8 Comments
Posted February 24, 2012 at 6:56 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. c.r.seitz wrote:

BCP is a constitutional document. It contains a lectionary. It is hard to see how certain parts of the BCP are less-constitutional or non-constitutional.
One suspects this general mindset is now responsible for things like having a clear canon on marriage and a BCP constitutional rite, yet simply ignoring it when it is inconvenient.
In the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, in Holy Week, the Bishop has simply declared that the constitutionality of the BCP (including its lectionary) is decisive over against SCLM declarations.

February 24, 10:07 am | [comment link]
2. Dick Mitchell wrote:

Thank you, Dr. Seitz.  I have no complaints about the RCL, but I understand that the BCP can be amended or revised only through a long and (thankfully) cumbersome process.  A GenCon resolution is just an expression of intent for that assembly, on that day—and may easily be superseded by the next resolution. 

Given all the variations of liturgy we see now via desktop publishing, I am mildly surprised that the SCLM would really express an opinion on this issue.

February 24, 10:55 am | [comment link]
3. c.r.seitz wrote:

Your last point is very wise. Once one begins to make exceptions, one is vulnerable to the same logic.

February 24, 11:35 am | [comment link]
4. Undergroundpewster wrote:

Perhaps this is just another shot at the BCP. The more shots are fired at it, the sooner the cry for a full revision will be heard by the powers that be.

February 24, 11:43 am | [comment link]
5. c.r.seitz wrote:

#4—I suspect liberals/progressives will themselves get into an internal squabble about whether the Occasional Services format is acceptable for SSBs/marriage, or whether there is a way to fast-forward BCP rites and change in marriage canons. Unless the topic of general viability of TEC does not overrule everything.

February 24, 1:48 pm | [comment link]
6. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

I don’t really see all that much of a discrepancy from what’s in the actual BCP readings. A few Psalms are changed. There is an optional Baruch reading added in the RCL. A few of the optional Gospels in the Triduum are eliminated. I didn’t see anything radically different to warrant this hullabaloo.

February 24, 2:16 pm | [comment link]
7. c.r.seitz wrote:

Hullabaloo?

February 24, 2:37 pm | [comment link]
8. Don C wrote:

I haven’t had a chance to look at the Holy Week lectionary yet but, I still wonder about wisdom of switching to RCL. While it certainly brings us closer to the other mainline (‘old line’) denominations it brings us farther away from the RCC lectionary. In addition, how many UMC, PC(USA), etc. churches have 3 readings every week? None that I’ve been in.

February 24, 4:48 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): Alicia Elder—Why You Shouldn’t Give Up Twitter For Lent

Previous entry (below): Martin Marty Reflects on Atheism, Religion and Alain de Botton

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)