Our church has released a new set of liturgical resources, providing collects, sentences and readings which line up with the three year RCL cycle.
Allegedly they "replace" certain pages in our Prayer Book, but I don't know about that as these pages have not been formally approved by General Synod and diocesan synods. (The argument that they simply reorganize resources already approved does not wash with me. Liturgical formularies are about the rubrics, the options (and, in this case of providing just one collect per Sunday, the non-options), as much as about the content of prayers).
Anyway, as a free offering to the life of our church, these resources which have been circulated by dioceses (some or all? not sure) are available online:
For Feast Days
For Sundays
For good collects for each Sunday of the year (as well as for feast days), I encourage you to visit Liturgy weekly.
If you have any comments to make by way of evaluation of the collects in the material I have posted to the above links, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You are right Peter, these pages in no way replace our Prayer Book pages. They have not even gone to General Synod yet; after that they go to all diocesan synods etc. & then back to General Synod & then wait a further year needing to pass all those stages.
I will be voting against these becoming formularies, against their replacing our current pages. Those pages of course need replacing - but not in this manner. Those of us committed to orthodoxy (which means "right worship") currently have a choice in which collect we use.
In my opinion, this is further vandalism of the great collect tradition and taonga that we have inherited within the Western church. Following this new system, we will be lucky to meet one of the collects we share within the Anglican Communion and the Western church once every three weeks. Some of the great collects we will never use. Any person of the Trinity can be addressed at random rather than the great liturgical tradition of praying to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Although the material is presented with the claim that "the endings are now consistent throughout" - this is clearly false. Sometimes each year is presented with the same collect at the expense of our inherited, shared collect (eg. Epiphany). Sometimes, it seems there has not even been the slightest attempt to read the collect aloud, eg. "... help us to see to see..." (Lent 3 Year B).
A collect has a specific structure and dynamic. I know 13 year olds who could explain to the Commission that many of these are nice prayers, but not collects.
Just look at the first one provided:
Praise to you, Christ our Redeemer
for you were circumcised this day
and given Jesus as your name.
Praise to you, Jesus, well are you named
for you save us from our sins.
Hear this prayer for your name's sake.
Amen
Your readers can learn more about the collect in Celebrating Eucharist Chapter 6
And in my blog post
Your readers are best IMO to work from the collect highlighted each week on my site. Here, for example, is this Sunday's collect
Blessings
Bosco
http://www.liturgy.co.nz
Cranmer they ain't....
But isn't the 'working model' of NZ liberal Anglicanism feminist modalism - or even incoherent Servetianism?
No wonder they're pushing these sub-bilcal models.
Hi Anonymous
It could be said in our church's defence that it is so marvellously rainbow-ish that feminist modalism was just the indigo on the spectrum!
This is not really on the topic, but is any else bothered at the way RCL has chopped the politically incorrect parts out of the David readings recently. No smiting the Jebusites, no breaking out on Uzzah. It spares us the hard questions, but unfortunately life is full of hard questions; it suggests there can be joy without holiness and victory without conflict.
Hi Anonymous
I am generally bothered by the RCL's dropping bits of the text out. When one surmises to oneself, 'Why this omission?' it is easy to think, 'It's PC to do so!'
I am uneasy about the apparently ready denigration of RCL and impugning its producers with negatively sounding if unclear motivations in its selections. Particularly on a site that I think is generally trying to encourage creative lectionary use rather than discourage and disparage it. I am presuming the reference is to July 5 2 Sam 5? This text, of course you will know, is new to RCL, not having been used in the originating 3 year lectionary. Certainly no lectionary system is perfect – but it is unfair to suggest that one cannot teach and preach about life’s hard questions using the RCL. There are plenty of communities using RCL that are reading the verses “Anonymous” finds missing in his/her version:
http://www.textweek.com/history/2sam5.htm
http://oldtestamentlectionary.unitingchurch.org.au/2009/July/Pent52Sam5_09.htm
Finally, have you contacted the CCT for an explanation and to give your feedback?
Hi Bosco
I shall take care not to slip into 'denigration' of RCL - that would not be fair to an important resource which many people have put much labour into.
Nevertheless my questions remain about the 'why' some bits get missed. An egregious example (for me) a year or two back was finding Romans 13:1-7 omitted. A difficult text to be sure, and arguably very unhelpful in (say) Saddamist Iraq, or certain South American dictatorships, but nevertheless important in the flow of Paul's argument!
Anyway, when a moment becomes spare I shall follow up your suggestions.
Thank you!
Romans 13:1-10 is read in RCL on Independence Day only 5 days ago! Your real question, hence, is why have NZ's liturgical committees & GS not adapted RCL into our different context, knowing that CCT inevitably has a particular USA focus in some places.
RCL is a revision as you know of the Roman Catholic 3 year lectionary. RCL is an enhancement and enrichment of the Vatican's landmark work. To suggest that the Vatican has omitted passages because the Vatican is trying to be "PC"as your comment states would be very very hard to support IMO.
Hi Bosco
I am beginning to see the true depths of the problem ... :)
Post a Comment