Lessons vs Readings
yohan300
Shipmate
In my gradual journey to discover what sort of CofE church I might like to attend regularly, I was deeply shocked (well, mildly intrigued) to find that the lessons in a service I attended recently were introduced as readings, and concluded by the words "here ends the Xth reading".
Is this about making things easier for the congregation, so that people mustn't feel obligated to do any thinking, and can regard it as more like a poetry recital?
Also as a minor point of curiosity, are there many places that proclaim "here endeth the Xth lesson" rather than "here ends the Xth lesson"?
Is this about making things easier for the congregation, so that people mustn't feel obligated to do any thinking, and can regard it as more like a poetry recital?
Also as a minor point of curiosity, are there many places that proclaim "here endeth the Xth lesson" rather than "here ends the Xth lesson"?
Comments
Would you need a BCP service to have "endeth"? I'm guessing most modern translations would go for the modern ending.
or
"Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church" (NZ)
Of course the root of ‘lesson’ is the Latin word for reading, and at the time the BCP came into being much of the content of school lessons would simply have been the teacher reading to the students.
The greater separation of meaning between ‘lesson’ and ‘reading’ is a subsequent phenomenon.
No big deal.
To-Mar-Toe
I would imagine simply that ‘reading’ makes more sense to the average person who isn’t steeped in C of E tradition. ‘Lesson’ is associated more with school, at least here in the UK.
Would that count the Hebrew Scriptures?
That said, one has to have a soft-spot for "A NZPB" - apart from the ghastly colour and the scribbly draw-rings (NZ accent transliterated)
At the Sunday Eucharist at Our Place, we usually end the Bible readings with 'This is the Word of the Lord/Thanks be to God', in approved C of E fashion.
On one or two occasions at weekday Morning Prayer, I've ended a particularly difficult (for me) OT reading with 'Hear ends the first reading' (rather than This is the Word of the Lord, clearly indicating my disagreement with that statement....).
IJ
Yes, unless you are Marcionite heretics.
Is it? If so where do I find that and the words to introduce a reading? I am at present trying to copy the reader of the first lesson and failing.
There is separate and different rubric for the Epistle and Gospel at Holy Communion.
These days, the reader says "Hear the ord of the Lord" with the same response. A difference after the Gospel though - the deacon who has read it says "The Gospel of the Lord" (elevating the Gospel Book) with the response "Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ".
You betcha
Funnily enough I think I'm the only cleric in NZ who is not enthusiastic about it. It has some Moments™ but has far too many "let's show that we know better than the rest of the liturgical world, so we'll stick a prayer here and a canticle here just for fun"
The text of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is online here. The Order for Morning Prayer includes this rubric.
This is not repeated in The Order for Evening Prayer, but it is clearly applicable there as well.
At my place it seems to depend on who is doing the reading at Evensong. Some say “lesson” and some say “reading”. I doubt many people notice. Very occasionally, someone may forget where they are and finish by saying “this is the word of the Lord” at which point two or three people respond by mumbling “Thanks be to God”
Use of the word "lesson" is tone deaf for some readings, like women being cursed with lots of pain in childbirth on the kicking out of Eden.
Thanks that is useful. I will look it up and make sure I get it right in future.
When you are saying "and holpen your servant Israel" really 'endeth' is not a problem. It is not anachronistic when used with the BCP but part of the language that the whole service is characterised by.
Not on my watch - I instruct lectors on the words they are to use to top and tail lessons. And woe betide anytone who talks about a reading being 'taken from'- what did they do? tear it out?
a) it was announced by the minister
b) it was printed out in full in the service booklet.
Perhaps there was no need to read it aloud?🤦♀️🏃♀️
I found it quite disorienting when I first went to a liturgical church and only the book of the Bible was announced - I was determined to find the passage my Bible, but by the time I did, the reading was finished!
I guess in a liturgical church it isn't so necessary to read out the references, because in theory the congregation know beforehand what the passage will be and can look it up to prepare. I am generally not that organised though!
I was referring specifically to the announcement of the Gospel at the eucharist, where the reader is directed to say 'Hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to N' to which the response is 'Glory to you, O Lord.' To insert chapter and verse numbers means the response loses its power, and even sounds banal.
I agree that in a church where everyone has a bible in front of them and is used to quickly looking up references, and when the reader allows them time to do that, it makes more sense. But in a liturgical, and specifically Anglican, context it's not necessary. In fact, announcing the references, rather than not, then becomes the 'shibboleth.'
It's written into the script of NZ and I think OZ eucharistic liturgies
I wish we had read Psalms as I could see 'For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A maskil of David. When the Ziphites had gone to Saul and said, "Is not David hiding among us?"' being a useful introduction.
It has always struck me that we are usually expected to listen to a reading and make sense of it without knowing anything about its context, so I like this idea, especially if the passage is obscure or somewhat unfamiliar. This is actually more useful than chapter and verse.
Isn't this what the sermon is for?
I so agree - but have to put up with it every week.
Even more banal, we had an elderly priest who would add to all that 'which you will find in your pew bibles on page XXX'.
If I was standing nearby with a thurible I'd be tempted.....
I grew up in a UK school with a C of E ethos. Things that were read in chapel were either lessons or the Gospel.
As I remember, lessons were introduced as, for example, "The Word of God is written in the second book of Kings". Might even have been "..in the sixth chapter of the second book of Kings, beginning at the first verse."
I don't think that "does this make sense to the average person" was ever a feature of my schooling.
At my current TEC shack, the priest has mandated that each lesson is preceded by a little potted summary. I find this rather irritating; mercifully the Gospel is spared such indignities.
I think that is quite common in schools, especially private schools. The school becomes a kind of mini world in itself - there are traditions that are specific to the school and cherished, many of which would be seen as a bit odd to the average person outside of the school.
Perhaps a little grace is in order? Not everyone appreciates being lectured or to being talked down to by like a child in class