Which Lectionary do you use for the Daily Office?

I really like the 1962 Canadian BCP, however, its Psalter is best avoided, as it omits certain commonly misunderstood verses from the so-called Imprecatory Psalms.

For example, here is Psalm 137 in the 1928 American BCP:

BY the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, * when we remembered thee, O Sion.
2 As for our harps, we hanged them up * upon the trees that are therein.
3 For they that led us away captive, required of us then a song, and melody in our heaviness: * Sing us one of the songs of Sion.
4 How shall we sing the LORD’S song * in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, * let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; * yea, if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember the children of Edom, O LORD, in the day of Jerusalem; * how they said, Down with it, down with it, even to the ground.
8 O daughter of Babylon, wasted with misery; * yea, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Blessed shall he be that taketh thy children, * and throweth them against the stones.

And here is Psalm 137 in the 1962 Canadian BCP:

BY the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, / when we remembered thee, O Sion.
2 As for our harps, we hanged them up / upon the trees that are therein.
3 For there they that led us away captive required of us a song, and they that plundered us a melody: / ‘Sing us one of the songs of Sion.’
4 How shall we sing the LORD’S song / in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, / let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; / yea, if I prefer not Jerusalem in my mirth.

Thus we see the error that divines as illustrious as Rev. John Wesley have made, which is to use an excessively literal-historical hyper-Antiochene reading of the Psalms, rather than a more appropriate typological and metaphorical reading, which in the case of the Psalms is strongly indicated, because these are the primary hymns and prayers of the Church. And commentaries on Psalm 137 usually do not reflect an imprecatory interpretation but instead point out that Babylon is in scripture used to represent the fallen World, and the “children” thereof are not actual children, but the sins, passions and vices that the world tempts us with.

Fortunately, the 1962 Canadian BCP is one of only two BCP editions I have found that removes the imprecatory verses, the other being A Prayer Book for New Zealand (1989). The newer Canadian Alternative Service Book, and also the otherwise dreadful Psalter In Inclusive Language published by the ACC a few years ago both feature the imprecatory verses (which is particularly jarring in the latter case). I do not have access to an Australian prayer book unfortunately, so I have no idea what they do. The real problem in terms of Psalters is for New Zealanders, whose default prayer book is missing important verses which were omitted for fear of offending people. The Canadian BCP however is also one which requires some caution, because it is an otherwise excellent edition; the Prayer Book Society of Canada actively promotes its use, and yet it suffers from this one major defect, which might catch someone seeking to avoid the problems that surround the Alternative Service Book and to use a traditional BCP edition unawares.

Otherwise, the 1962 BCP Lectionary is entirely acceptable. One easy fix to the problem is simply to use the 1962 BCP for most things, but use the lectionary from the 1928 American or 1662 English BCP editions.

 

You guys who use the "1662" readings... does that mean you're using the 19th century lectionary currently printed in teh 1662 lectionary, or you're actually using the original one?

Cos, fun fact, the first one was the most robust, covering the most scripture; everything since is a reduction by comparison. The 2019 daily lectionary may be the closest one to the original in those terms.

 

I’m using the original 1662. I found an actual edition from 1801, with the old letters and elegant designs, the whole bit. That’s what I use as my prayer book, in addition to the 1928 for the things like Family Prayers which are pretty remarkable in the 1928 edition.

 

http://www.liturgy.io/anglican-1662...020&minute=3&style=LINED&trans=ESV&psalt=ESV#

I use this website

 

Interesting... off the top of my head I can't figure out what lectionaries that's drawing from!

 

I don't really know. I assumed it was from the 1662 but it is part of my Bible reading now. I am on a 60 day read through the Psalms so I read through them about 6 times per year. I read that lectionary, and then I do my own Bible reading often before I get out to go to work.

 

The Cambridge Standard Text of the 1662 is printed with the lectionary from 1871 and the revised lectionary of 1922.

Interestingly, we have a wedding on next month's schedule at my parish which will be officiated according to the rite of 1662. Our bishop implores the clergy to watch the wedding of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip prior to doing a wedding. He calls it the quintessential Anglican wedding service.

 

I'm curious to know if anyone has gone through the pre-insanity daily office lectionaries of the 20th century to see which ones include the most scripture, which ones omit the most controversial material, etc.?

I'm thinking of the 1928 American, 1922 & 1961 English, 1962 Canadian, and other lectionaries that follow the liturgical calendar.

 

I use the 1662 BCP with the 1662 lectionary, and otherwise follow the rubrics as closely as possible, the only exception being some of the state prayers, since I live in the USA. For those portions I follow the suggestions given by Percy Dearmer in the Parson’s Handbook, substituting the prayer For All Conditions of Men and the General Thanksgiving for the state prayers, in morning and evening, respectively.

 

THe actual 1662 lectionary, or the one currently printed in editions of the 1662 book?

 

The actual 1662 lectionary.

 

What is the difference?

 

The original 1662 proceeds in whole chapters at a time. It is pure in-course reading.

 

I use the pure 1662 as well.

 

Maybe the book situation in England is different, but when you pick up a 1662 BCP in America, it typically has two daily lectionaries in it. One is labeled as an "alternative table" from 1922 and the other is older, which people sometimes assume is the original but it's not! It's a revision from the 19th century (I don't know exactly when).

As Invictus said, the original daily office lectionary from 1549, only lightly edited by 1662, read through whole chapters at a time (the NT 3x a year, not 2), used the ordinary calendar year (not the liturgical calendar year), and had a neat set of special OT readings for Sundays, allowing the Sunday-only worshipers to get a summary of the OT in the daily office over the course of the year.

Feast days were represented very lightly though, like the new 2019 does.

 

It’s from 1871 I think.