RITUALISM CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 253, 21 July 1919, Page 6

RITUALISM CHARGE

THE ST. MICHAEL'S CASE JUDGMENT OF COURT OF BISHOPS By TelccraDh—Press Association. Dunedin, July 17. The Court of Appeal of the Church of the Province of New Zealand delivered judgment to-day in the case of the Kev. C. 11. Gossott v. the Hev. C. E. Perrv. This was an appeal from the iudsment of the Bishopof Christchurch in a case brought in the Bishop's Court, Cliristchurch, wherein Archdeacon Charity Hilsrovo Gossett, Lower lticcarton. made certain charges against the Kev. Charles Elliott Perry, vicar of the uarish of St. Michael and All Angels. Th« first ch.U'ge was that on various occasions Mr. Perry reserved part of the consecrated bread and wino, instead of causiim the whole of such consecrated elements which remained to be consumed in accordance with the rules to that fifed. It was alleged also that this nvnetice was contrary to the Twentyoichth Article of Religion and the provision of Clause 2, Canon 2, Title D. 'Hie Court states:—The, Twenty-eighth Article, ea far as it deals with the question of reservation, does not forbid or condemn the practice. It does not apcear to the Court that reservation is necessarily condemned by this Article. The allegation that .the practice is contrarv to Clause 2, Canon 2, Title D, raises a very different question. The .cl'iirsre amounts to this: that Mr. Perry, bv reservins the sacrament, used an order or form not authorised, therefore refused or neglected to use the form directed to l>c used. His defence was that he was authorised to reserve the snerament bv his Biship, and that it I was otherwise ordered by lawful authorj itv. The Bi-Oiop of Christchurch decided in Mr. Perry's favour. It is the oniuion of members of the Court, except the Bishop of Auckland, that tho decision of the Bishop of Christchurch is ri'-'ht. The Court thinks it clear that the reservation of the (sacrament is not contrary to any doctrine of the Church, J nml that practice, has become a ([iiesI tion of order or form, in regard to. the j uermissibilily of which the Bishop is the lawful authority contemplated by

the Canon. ' . '. The second charge is complementary to the first, mid is governed by the deci- 1 bion thtceca. The Court states it is not , unite clear what offence is alleged in section A of tho third charge, nor, although he appears to have admitted tho fact, how Mi. Perry could cause others or another to do as alleged. If the faachins of tiny doctrine such as the eoriioral nresence of the Lord, in tho reserved elements is alleged and can be taken to be admitted, such would undoubtedly contravene both Article aud (.'anon.

With regard to B fliie use of a prayer, entitled "A Colloquy." before the reserved sacrament), tho Court does not consider that there was any false teaching in the colloquy, nor that the use in the manner alleged indicated a beliut that the sacrament would fca-vo a -wholesome effect or operation (.part from bemg worthily received, but it regards the practice ns'foreign to the mind and teaching ot the Church. The conditions laid down by the Bishop of ChrUtclmvch for reservation in future take. ,iway the opportunity for such practice. ■ In 'rtiarxl to O, thu Court s'ates thai if Mr. Perry by admission of <he truth oi the facts' alleged means that he intentionally taught mid advisedly niiuntainod the invocation of the Jilessed Virgin Mary it is the opinion of ihe Court tint such leaching is fontrury to tn« Twenty-second Article of iteliwon anil Clause 1, Canon 2, Title D. It.]? very much open to question, however, if ilr. l'erry's at!mission can be Inker, is inoro than' mi admission cf the use of tho words, and the use of the words does not necessarily involve invocation of the Blessed Virgin, in which caso thore is no traehini contrary to the Article or Canon. Willi regard to the. diar?e that in chaplet Mr. Perry prescribed vain reD»titions, the Court nsreed with the ! Bishop of "Clirist'clnu-L-li"that they were I not such as wero condemned by our Lord, and can scarcely bo countod vein. The fourth charge was neglect _l<> _ use the form appointed for the administration of the Sncrament/in that the celebrant at St. Michael's did on more (.Iran cue occasion turn to the people and hold towards them the consecrated bread with the words "Behold the Lamb of. God. The Court agrees with ihe Bishop ot Christcliurch that tho prnciicu is without authority of any kind. The fifth charge referred to ringing a bell after the consecration of ihe bread and wino. The Court s.-iya it does not uiipOM from tho charge whether the church bell or a sac'riii* bell, used as part of the service in thu ssinct.uarjy is referred to. The Bishop of Christcliurch has dealt with both, and tho Court agrees with his judgment. . The sixth charge was that on a special occasion the celebrant used epistle, and gospel other than those prescribed, used the epistle and gospel from the Roman use added a prayer to the prayer of consecration, and celebrated himself without other communicants. Tho Court says it apears that' before these proceedings the Bishop of Christchurch had admonished Air. Perry, who had agreed to accept the ruling. As the admonition had been acted on the Court think tho. matter need not be further dealt with. The offence alleged in the seventh charge apears to the Court to be encouraging and constanty permitting people habitually to kneel and prostrate themselves during the saying of the Niocene Creed. There appears to the Uurt to be no question of doctrine involved, but the priest has no authority to direct tho people to assume any attitude contrary to that prescribed in the rubric^ In tho eighth charge and the yiurts judgment thereon the Tabernacle is atiiy with us an alleged unlawful commentapart from any question as to its purpose as the receptacle of the reserved sacrament. If the Tabernacle bo regarded as a receptacle for the .reserved elements the Court agrees with the Bishop of Christchurch, who has ordered its removal. As to the name alleged'to be improperly assigned to the chapel, tho Court holds that if there had been an unauthorised change of name this would apear to be more, a matter' for the Church Property Trustees of the diocese. In regard to the light continually burning before the Tabernacle or immediately before tho consecrated bread and wine, the Court agrees with the action of the. Bishop of Chrietchureh, who ordered the removal.

The next charges were that a crucifix was placed on the wnll above the pulpit in St. Michael's, and that M"r. Perry permitted or encouraged the people to bow before it, with the averment that such acts amounted to tho worshiping or adoration of such image, and with regard to the use of the crucifix on the processional cross. Tho Court states that tlio Bishop of Christcliurch held that their use was not contrary to the Articles of Canon, and it has heard nothing to convince it that ho was wrong. Regarding the charge that Mr. Perry wrote an article in the parish magazine statins that confession and absolution thereafter were necessary, even- for those Walking earnestly with God, the Courthold such doctriuo contrary to the authorised teaching' or doctrine of the Church. It is for the Bishop of Christchurch to decide what, if any, penalty should be'imposed in respect to this offence.

The next charge was that Mr. Perry, in the narish magazine, published certain doctrines or teachings on the eubiect of fasting communion, contrary to the doctrine of the Church. While the Court nitrees that fasting communion is a lamlablo custom in the Church, it cannot accept the statement that it is I he rule laid down by the Church. Mr. Perry's teaching appears to tho Court contrary to tho teaching of the Church. The next chargo was that Mr. Perry rave consecrated bread and wine grudgiinrlv and without words of administration to certain persons, whom he believed to have como not fasting. The offence appears to lie in omitting tho words of administration, contrary to Clause 2. Canon 2, Title D. It is for the Bishou of Christcliurch to say what penalty, if any, should bo imposed. In eencral comments the Court says:— No doubt when tho revised prayer book has been sanctioned by Act of Parliament the Church in New Zealand will have an opportunity of dectarinc its mind on various matters, but it appears in the meantime, unless I

there is tb , be complete bondage, tto bishops must be allowed lo exercise discretion for quieting and apprising doubt* and diversifies. The costs incidental to the appeal are to bo taxed by the chancellor of the Diocese of DuweAin, and paid by the appellant and respondent in eciual proportion. The judgment is signed 'by the Primate ami the Bishops of . Wellington and Waiapu. ' In ii separate judgment the Bishop of AuckJand Hays that he cannot concur with the othersk in regard to the first and second charges.* He Holds that so far as the Church in New Zealand is concerned there is at present no lawful authority to order the ivem-ation nf the sacranient for any purpose. In his opinion tho reservation of the sacrament for any purpose is contrary to the fifth rubric at thn end of tho Communion office. Ho agrees, however, fjiat the rcservution of the sacrament is', not r.pcessarfly contrary to any dootrine of tho ',hi£rch. Rβ strongly approves , of reservation for tho sick,, hut only iu an extreme east, when specially desired n«u<l s=o that it be ndininUtored at onee.' Ho concurs in tho rest of the ludsmertt, and f-grees as to tile need for revision of 'he prayer book.