The official website of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia this year only provides a Word version of New Zealand’s Lectionary Te Maramataka 2026 (721.89 kB – click link to download). As part of the resources provided by this site, I have produced a PDF version for you (1.5 MB): click here.
This leads into my first reflection this year. People may lack the necessary software to open the Word file; compatibility issues can arise across different operating systems and devices, so document accessibility is limited. This is especially true for people using mobile devices. It, again, highlights something I have repeatedly stressed – the church’s snail-slow adjustment to a digital world. 2/3 of web access is now done from mobile devices. It also highlights the slower connection that the church makes with younger people who access the internet more from mobile devices than older people do.
The rest of this post is just a collection of comments from a quick first glance. There is much in a publication such as this that is good and is of value, helping connect to the world-wide church, and back through the traditions of the centuries, while grounding us in this place in the South Pacific, at this time. Those tend to mostly be when the lectionary booklet expresses what we have agreed together – including celebrations of days that are international and ecumenical, as well as of persons who have expressed God’s love and life on these shores.
In a document like a lectionary, the devil, of course, is in the detail. That detail will, for some, appear as nitpicking (gnatpicking?).
On the publication of A New Zealand Prayer Book/He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (ANZPB/HKMOA), much was made of the “A” – it is A New Zealand Prayer Book [the Te Reo Māori title of this Prayer Book emphasises the same – “He” not “Te”]. Anglicans were not arrogant enough to claim production of THE New Zealand Prayer Book. Year by year, however, the Lectionary calls it The New Zealand Prayer Book [Lectionary booklet page 2].
“Propers” (Arabic numerals) are in – described as the “numbering system of the Revised Common Lectionary” (page 7). Propers go 1, 2, skip 3 and 4, then 5. Christmas propers (Roman numerals I, II, III) are also in. There, Propers I, II, and III (Roman numerals) are followed immediately by “Collect: Christmas Day: 2” (Arabic numerals). And the instructions around their use are confusing (can “Proper II and collect 2 be used for Midnight or only on ‘Christmas Day at Dawn’?)
The collects in the lectionary booklet are produced from the English and Te Reo Māori from the 2020 A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa. The introduction to them in the lectionary booklet could be misleading:
The collects printed in ANZPB/HKMOA 2020 Edition, and in the online Prayer Book, are an updated version of those the General Synod/ Te Hīnota Whānui 2010 approved as an allocation of collects from the material in the original ANZPB/HKMOA, pages 549ff, to fit the RCL readings for Sundays, Major Feasts and Holy Day Lectionary booklet, page 4
The English-language collects have been to General Synod/ Te Hīnota Whānui (GSTHW) – the Māori translations have a different status: they have not been even to a single meeting of GSTHW, let alone the twice-round process that the Pākehā English-language ones have been through to make them formularies.
“Updated version” is, hence, to be interpreted as meaning a translation from English to Māori is central to the “updating”. To be clear: this is nothing to do with the quality of the Te Reo translation; it is simply highlighting that Māori liturgical provisions in our three-tikanga church should be of equal status to other resources. I do not know if anything else was done to “update” what was approved by General Synod/ Te Hīnota Whānui 2010. If you have noticed anything else that has been altered in this “updating”, please let us know.
It is further worth noting that both the 2020 and the 2024 editions of the publications called A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa were presented to General Synod/ Te Hīnota Whānui to begin the process of making these binding on our Church (as all editions from 1989-2005 were), but GSTHW voted against even beginning this process. Instead, it has begun the process of removing the full A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa from our Constitution, replacing it with “formularies found in A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa” I challenge anyone to see how hard it is to find which of the material in NZPBHKMA 2020/2024 are formularies and which are not! [Of course clergy study this meticulously in their training – NOT!] In the 1989-2005 editions, that was simple: all services in those books were formularies.
The introduction about collects continues:
A common practice is to use the collect for Sunday during the whole week from the “first Evensong” (on the Saturday night before) until the following Saturday morning. When other provision is made there is reference to it in The Lectionary. It is common also to add the collect for the day’s commemoration. Lectionary booklet, page 4
It may very well be “common” to have multiple collects – but, I would argue strongly, that it is mistaken to do so. It misunderstands the purpose of the collect and contributes to the sense that the Gathering of the Community which begins the Eucharist is little more than an assemblage of lovely little bits, prayers, verses from the Bible, and stuff to sing – rather than having a grammar and movement which prepares individuals to gather as a community and to prepare this gathered community to hear what the Spirit is saying to us as church.
Furthermore, the church having grown in re-appreciation that the collect, like the Eucharistic Prayer, is addressed to the First Person of the Trinity, through Christ, in the power of the Spirit, this lectionary booklet has now returned to the practice of spin the bottle and pick a Member of the Trinity, any Member, and address a lovely poetic prayer to Whomever the bottle ends up pointing to…
Some errors have not been corrected. General Synod Te Hinota Whanui (GSTHW) went to significant effort (starting 12 years ago and debated in every diocesan synod and hui amorangi, then debated again at the next meeting of General Synod Te Hinota Whanui) about the use of “of, in, or after” in titles for Sundays. The agreement was Sundays “of Epiphany” – yet the Lectionary continues to call them Sundays “of the Epiphany”. This error has been pointed out many, many years running now.
Our church’s formulary (agreement) is that “Ordinary time is the period after the Feast of the Presentation of Christ” (February 2). Yet the first Sunday after The Presentation (February 8), rather than being called the “1st Sunday in Ordinary Time” (following our GSTHW ruling) is called the “5th Sunday in Ordinary Time”. [To be fair, this is called ‘Proper 1’]. There is no sign of the 4th or earlier Sundays in Ordinary Time. [My own solution to this would be to change the formulary, and have our Ordinary Time begin the day after the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, following majority Christianity and the originators of the Ordinary Time concept].
I am (pleasantly) surprised that Candlemas (The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple) is not provided as an option in the lectionary booklet for 2026 for Sunday morning, 1 February. I am not in favour of Sundayising lots of celebrations (moving them to the nearest Sunday). The lectionary booklet started Sundayising Candlemas in 2001, drawing on an Anglophile tradition where they are, at that time of year, in deepest of dreary English winter and the Church of England (rightly) fills the gloom with as many celebrations as possible (Carol services, Christingle, Crib Service, Vigil, New Year, Epiphany, Baptism, Epiphanytide, Candlemas) just at the time when our Southern Hemisphere are pared down to the bare minimum and people are enjoying Summer holidays. The 2026 lectionary booklet does show leftovers of the Candlemas Sundayising practice. In the previous paragraph, I have already expressed my position that this maybe-appropriate-for-the-Northern-Hemisphere Epiphanytide be abandoned here, at the same time making more sense of our Ordinary Time counting.
Feb 24 has “St Matthias the Apostle may be celebrated today if not on May 14″. I continue to be surprised that surprise that Tikanga Maori approved the recent moving of Matthias to clash with Ngākūkū, Missionary in Mataatua on May 14. And I continue to think that decision should be reversed.
The 5th Sunday in Lent (March 22) is optionally called “Passion Sunday” while there is no mention of the Passion. Ecumenical, international reform has the reading of the Passion on the 6th Sunday in Lent (as our Lectionary does also). The title “Passion Sunday” is, hence, best reserved for that international, ecumenical agreement.
On page 50 begins readings for “the 3rd Week of Lent”. Should that be “in Lent”? Furthermore, these readings are said to originate in “CWL” – there continues to be (year by year) no indication what CWL stands for or its status in our church or why there are not similar readings provided for the 1st and 2nd weeks “of Lent”.
As in previous years, I would be interested to know where this lectionary booklet gets the ruling from: “The reading from Acts must be used each Sunday in Eastertide” (pages 59ff). It may very well be a good idea – but where does “must” come from? We are only required to follow formularies of our church – not what is indicated by this lectionary booklet. This is an important principle. Where the lectionary booklet does not conform to the formularies, we must follow the formularies, not the lectionary booklet. Where the lectionary booklet sets requirements beyond what the formularies require, we do not need to follow the booklet.
[Furthermore, as an aside on that same page 59, where does “Eastertide” come from in this lectionary booklet? Our formularies consistently call this “The Season of Easter”.]
“after” was not an option agreed to by GSTHW but “Sunday after Ascension” is an option in the Lectionary for 17 May.
Each year, I have been noting our Anglican Church of Or suggestion to have all four colours in the lectionary for the Second Sunday in November (8 November; page 136). The colours in the lectionary booklet are not required to be followed – in fact, the lectionary booklet itself claims it is simply collating “common practice in most parishes” page 4. [As yet another aside: we have long moved past simply focusing on parishes – there is significant mission and ministry happening in cathedrals, schools, hospitals, etc – the usual term has moved to the regular use of “Ministry Units” rather than only “parishes”.]
Some clarification: some of the lectionary booklet presents formularies (ANZPB/HKMA or RCL are binding formularies of our Church – with the added new note, since 2020, that there is a 2020 publication called A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoawhich contains a mixture of formularies and authorised services which are not binding formularies). The majority of what the lectionary booklet presents, however, is not of this agreed binding formulary status. There is no distinction made in the text. For example the lectionary booklet has DEL:
the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary (DEL) are suitable for weekday celebrations of the Eucharist when no other provision is made or when you decide not to use the commemoration of the day. These readings may also be used for a single daily office, if desired.
The DEL (based on the Roman Catholic Daily Eucharistic Lectionary) is a semi-continuous two year lectionary with a wide use of scripture, though not complete coverage of the Bible. Two readings are provided for each day, the first from the Old or New Testament, the second always a Gospel. Psalm provision is intended to be a brief response to the first reading.Lectionary booklet 2026 page 3
DEL (please correct me if I am wrong) has no official status in our Church. I personally put the DEL alongside my commitment to the 3-year way of organising Sunday readings (in which RCL stands). But that’s just my own appreciation of the most-followed system for reading the Bible systematically. In the Anglican Church of Or, while there looks to be no indication that this is so, DEL has no authorised status in our church, whilst the 3-year Sunday system (including RCL) is a vowed-and-signed-up-to-use requirement.
The 3rd and 4th columns, similarly, have no official status in our Church.
And then there’s CW:
On a few occasions where provision is not made in RCL or in ANZPB/HKMOA, material has been included from Common Worship, an adaptation of the Revised Common Lectionary for use in the Church of England (CW).
Lectionary 2026 page 2 and even repeated on page 6!
The situation with CW is fraught. While the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has binding, formulary-level readings which we have agreed to use, on about 15 feast days the Lectionary booklet had the heading CW instead. Thankfully, that has been reducing so that now I count 8 (including the unexplained “CWL”).
Other issues of the Anglican Church of Or continue.
November 22 can be (not even mentioning titles in languages other than English):
Christ the King Sunday
or The Reign of Christ Sunday
or 34th Sunday in Ordinary Time
or Proper 29
or Sunday before Advent
or Sunday next before Advent
or Aotearoa Sunday
or Feast of Christ in All Creation
or, of course, A Spring Festival of Praise to the Creator (see page 161).
“THE BISHOPS” (pages 165-166) states that this gives “Dates of Consecration/Episcopal ordination of those episcopally ordained in or currently resident in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia”. The list is a good one, but the descriptor needs to change (eg. Bishop Victoria Matthews was neither ordained nor is currently resident here).
Other Reflections
The official liturgical report (CLLC) to General Synod Te Hīnota Whānui emphasised that there is a “lack of training and resourcing of clergy in liturgy… in our own province.” I have LONG been lamenting the dearth of liturgical study, and appropriate training and formation in worship, worship leadership, and shared spirituality…
One would have thought, therefore, that the CLLC (overseeing the publication of the popular, in-every-church, with-every-ordained-person-and-church-leader Lectionary booklet) would have ensured that there was good catechesis in this publication, year by year enriching our worship.
One would have thought…
Instead, this year’s Lectionary booklet once again reinforces common (unhelpful) misunderstandings.
The Mistaken Search for a Theme
… and the way that leads to reading less scripture…
The Lectionary booklet (page 4) says:
The collects printed in earlier editions of ANZPB/HKMOA (before 2020) relate to the [home-grown, NZ Anglican] 2-year series and do not usually relate to other sets of readings. Using these with [Revised Common Lectionary] RCL will frequently result in a mismatch.
Yes – in the Seasons (Advent; Christmas; Lent; Easter), a strong thread runs through the three RCL readings (or the Roman Catholic 3-Year Sunday readings on which RCL is based). And so, in these Seasons, the collect would normally “relate” to these readings.
But in “Ordinary Time” (“Counting” Time – the word “ordinary” is connected to ordinal, counting numbers, 1st, 2nd, 3rd…), the first reading and the Gospel may “relate” (either reinforcing, but sometimes even contrasting!) But the second reading always has its own semi-continuous track. At the moment, for example, the second reading is working its way semi-continuously through the Letter to the Hebrews. And any connection to the first reading or the Gospel is “coincidental”.
Furthermore, the previous paragraph is only talking about the second column in the Lectionary booklet (the column called “RCL Related”). If your community is following the first column (called “RCL Continuous”), then the first reading is also following its own semi-continuous reading of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). In RCL Continuous, we’ve just been sampling Job semi-continuously, Sunday by Sunday, and are about to begin Ruth.
Let me stress my point again: (as I stress in my free, online book Celebrating Eucharist) the search for a theme (in Ordinary Time) is mistaken. And, in spite of my making the point explicitly in Chapter 7 of Celebrating Eucharist, there are still communities that give the (NZ, homegrown 2Yr Series) theme as the “theme” of the service even when what follows is readings taken from the 3-year RCL Cycle (provided in the Lectionary booklet)! [So, this coming Sunday, the 24th Sunday after Pentecost, they try to wrestle whatever they read to fit an “Our country” theme! I am even aware of NZ Anglican communities that equated the Ordinary Sunday number with the Pentecost number, running out of “themes” on Ordinary 27 which they equated with Pentecost 27!]
The 2020 and 2024 A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa is mistaken in assigning collects as if there is a theme in Ordinary Time readings. AND the Lectionary booklet reinforces this mistaken concept.
One might note that the older, better tradition of realising that readings are not “themed” is remembered later on the same page 4:
A common practice is to use the collect for Sunday during the whole week from the “first Evensong” (on the Saturday night before) until the following Saturday morning.
Weekday Eucharists (following the Daily Eucharistic Lectionary [DEL]) clearly do not have a “theme” in Ordinary Time.
Now the punchline: If we have an invented theme to constrain what the Spirit might say to us individually and/or as a community through the scriptures (and other elements of worship), this is a strong explanation for omitting (a) reading(s)!!! Why would we read readings that distract from that theme?!!! Our diocese discovered significant biblical illiteracy and, a majority of Anglican parishes cutting down the number of readings used at the Sunday service (the psalm – in this “lack of training and resourcing of clergy in liturgy” – is regularly regarded as simply another reading rather than a prayer/hymn responding to the first reading).
This is NOT a collect
I have written previously that the process for authorising A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa starts at General Synod Te Hinota Whanui (GSTHW), includes all diocesan synods and hui amorangi, and requires a significant majority in a second time at GSTHW. This process means ANZPB/HKMOA is in our Church Constitution, requiring our assent and adhering to it. That formularies process was followed for every new edition from 1989 – 2020. Then, in 2020 a book was published with the same title (“A New Zealand Prayer Book He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa“), but without going through this process. And a further non-GSTHW edition in 2024. Then, when this new book was presented to begin the process in relation to a third of the 2020/2024 books, GSTHW did not accept that the material was of a good enough quality to proceed. Furthermore, at this meeting of GSTHW, the process was begun to alter the Constitution that only those parts of NZPBHKMA that had gone through the twice-round process require our assent and following.
At GSTHW2024, Rev’d Ivica Gregurec expressed concern that “nice prayers” were being presented, but many are not collects.
I have explained the nature of a collect as:
A collect is a short prayer which may have five parts (* essential) – my five titles will help you remember this:
YOU* – the addressing of God
WHO – what God has done or is like that indicates why we are confident when we make our request
DO* – what we would like God to do
TO – what we expect to happen when God fulfils our request
THROUGH*… Jesus…The 5-part collect prayer fits into the larger four parts, the core of collecting the community:
1) The bidding: “Let us pray…”
2) Individuals pray deeply in silence
3) The leader collects our silent prayer – in the “collect”
4) The collected community’s “Amen” to the collecting prayer
The Lectionary booklet further detracts from the collect being a central act of Gathering the Community by encouraging multiplying collects (as Anglicans were accustomed to doing in the BCP Evensong tradition):
A common practice is to use the collect for Sunday during the whole week … When other provision is made there is reference to it in The Lectionary . It is common also to add the collect for the day’s commemoration.
page 4, lectionary booklet 2026
Common – maybe. A good idea? Not so much.
I was at a conference where a speaker described their struggle moving from Aotearoa New Zealand’s Prayer Book to Common Worship in the CofE. In Aotearoa New Zealand, this person said, one starts at the beginning working their way through the service book until the end. The “lack of training and resourcing of clergy in liturgy… in our own province” mentioned above by CLLC ends up with liturgy appearing like a string of lovely prayers rather than a dynamic journey we take together with some explanatory words. Helping people to come to an understanding of the “grammar” of the liturgical action is central to Celebrating Eucharist (and especially the accompanying video).
There is provision of what are often lovely little prayers, even nice prayers for a possible string of prayers, but often they are NOT collects, and GSTHW was right in saying our Church can do better.
Let me conclude this section by underscoring that using any collect (from any source, or making your own) continues to be allowed. I have long been working on a resource, collecting collects we have in common: Book of Prayers in Common.
Finally, are there any things you notice as you skim through the lectionary booklet for 2026 – things you like; things you think can be improved?
Do follow
The Liturgy Facebook Page
The Liturgy Twitter Profile
The Liturgy Instagram
The Liturgy Bluesky Profile
and/or sign up to a not-too-often email
Where does one apply to become the editor of this magnificent (!) publication?
That information, Kieran, is available on the back page (last page of the pdf). Blessings.