Prayer Book Discussions

Evening Star, Issue 19789, 13 February 1928, Page 4

Prayer Book Discussions

pim Association—By Telegraph—Copyright.

LONDON, February 10. fte chief event of the House of Laity’s resumed discussion in committee was a lady’s success in carrying an addendum to the reservation 'rubrics. Mrs Creighton, widow of a former Bishop of London, said that in order to show that there was no popish plot (at which there was general laughter), sue would move the addition of words affirming that the new communion for the sick was not intended for_ uses contrary to the church’s historic beliefs. She explained that the idea was to remove misunderstandings and misapprehensions. The amendment aroused several distinguished laymen. Lord Hugh Cecil said that the amendment was unconstitutional and ultra vires, because it purported to define the church’s theological doctrine. Professor Cuthbert Turner (professor of divinity at Oxford) said that the House or Laity, including himself, knew next to nothing about theology, yvhich was a matter tor the bishops.

Mrs Creighton’s amendment was passed with a- preface respectfully requesting the bishops to consider whether such declaration could be included in the book.

Professor Turner again protested that the amendment was out of order. The Chairman (the Earl of Selborne) agreed to consult the archbishops for a ruling. The amendments to the first and second rubrics were either withdrawn or defeated after the briefest debate, but the Anglo-Catholics moved to delete the provision of the third rubric declaring that reservation was intended for the sick only, and shall be used for no other purpose whatever, the latter words being intended to reassure the House of Commons that the AngloCatholics claimed the right to worship the real presence. It should be a matter for individual conscience. The amendment was defeated. The recent scenes at Darwen Church prompted a successful amendment, moved and seconded from Lancashire, requiring clergymen to consult their parochial councils before introducing i changes in services to which the 'parishioners are accustomed. The mover said that the Darwen controversy was symptomatic. The church ,was paralysed in Lancashire, as the parishioners refused to contribute towards the upkeep of the church withjout safeguards against unpopular innoj ;rations. I Sir Thomas Inskip secured an adcli,'tional clause making it perfectly clear that the old book was available, as before, for those desiring it. The House of Clergy also debated an amendment designed to give believers in the real presence an opportunity to worship according to the beliefs, and rejected it by 146 votes to 56.

“No Popish Plot” “Germany In Chains” Liberals Win Lancaster

HOUSE OF LAITY

REVISION STAGE COMPLETED. LONDON, February 11. 'Apart from a minor amendment, the only amendment in the House of Clergy gave the clergy the right of appeal to an archbishop in the Synod from a decision of a bishop in matters concerning perpetual reservation. This was carried by an overwhelming majority, and the House adjourned till February 15. The House of Laity reassembled, and at the evening session adopted a resolution similar to the clergy's, providing for an appeal to the archbishop and the collective bishops in each province regarding licenses for the reservation of the sacrament. Sir Charles Marston attempted to obtain a revision of the Athanasian creed, but Lord Hugh Cecil pointed out that the motion was outside the Assembly’s scope, and the motion was rejected. The House of Laity has completed .the revision stage. Announcing the postponement of the convocation of Canterbury, which was .--arranged to begin on February 15, the Primate explains that the bishops of both provinces are anxious to proceed with the revision stage of the Prayer Book next week after receiving reports from the Houses of Clergy and Laity.