Talk:Revised Common Lectionary

Bible Start‑class

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism Start‑class

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.

The fact that different sides of the argument are provided does not make this a balanced article. The argument that a Sunday lectionary with 156 Sundays and three readings cannot present the whole bible is a matter of common sense. It would be more useful for any critique to point out the serious omissions or the positive developments. It is not encyclopaedic to reproduce extreme views, even if these are balanced by others. Serious liturgical scholarship alone qualifies for inclusion. I am proposing to rewrite the whole section but would prefer to seek consensus first. Roger Arguile 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I have had a stab at revising it but I crave patience to check out some of my statements. Roger Arguile 17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the article

I've reverted the recent changes for a variety of reasons. Much of the History section was already included in the lead, and discussion of the wider history of lectionaries in general doesn't really belong in this article.

The section entitled "Lectionary Controversy" was problematic on several levels, it was cealry copied from elsewhere, albeit it with the asertion that the author of the text had given permission. However, it is far from clear exactly what level of permission had been granted, and whether this was sufficient to cover the requirements of the GFDL under which Wikipedia operates. The issues of trying to cover the entirety of scripture during Sunday services are already alluded to, and I don't think there's any need to go into the full detail in this article. I will re-insert a link to the website so it is avialble to those that are interested. David Underdown 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the "Denominational Practices" section to state the the R.C. Church uses the Ordo Lectionum Missae, on which the RCL is based; and have also included the LCMS among the churches in the US which have adopted/adapted the RCL for their own use. --Wolf Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.208.47 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include Apocrypha?

I refered to this item to see if the Common Lectionary includes references to verses in the Apocryphal or RC Deuterocanonical books. But it does not say. Can someone find out and add it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.44.139 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know to edit the article itself, but I can tell you that the Revised Common Lectionary does not include any texts from the Apocrypha. Cheers. 64.134.41.169 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]