Prayer BOOK REVISION.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 February 1923, Page 4

Prayer BOOK REVISION.

CONTROVERSY IN AUSTRALIA SYDNEY. Feb |. The propos.ib for revision of tin prayer hock have created a ('em,, i"| ■ \ in ugh. .in eti' h Any radii il alterations in tin* Prayer Book are iiinmd to excite a shar| divi -ion of opinion. The I’ray: r Book ithe authori:live legal do ament oi the Anglican Church as to faith cue practice. Bishops have no power to sanction any variations or amendments. In Australia, however. it is well-known that many clergymen act on their own initiative in intfodm ing vari*.lions, recognising that ilie-e. if challenged. are illegal. Tin revised Prayer Hook will be I'm ‘■|:ennissi ve use.” Tiio-. e who prefer the pres, ut Prayer Book, whether in Au-tr.ilia or cl.-, where, will la* free to i taia it in tt.-e. just as in the Vnglieiatt Communion, the authorised version of ill:.* Bibb* i- -till retained in pre-loicm-e to the revised version. It is universally r cognised that the Prayer Book needs revising in lint partitular direction of making the hook more comprehensive in its appeal and inoru appropriate in the changed modern eoitdilion.s of lile. The “heated debate” which is pre- ■ ' : ted to take place in tho Natioiitr Assembly will centre around the proposals on which Coe High and bow Cluircll parties are cutely at variance. These will include the proposed prayer for the dead, tho form for reserving at open Communion so much ot the consecrated bread and wine as is necessary for the sick of the parish, and the alternative use of vestments. Tlk* pro posed .shortening ol the forms lot morning and evening prayer. llui amendment of the marriage service in the employment of modern terms to set forth the purposes for which marriage was ordained, the retention only of the essential pari of the Commandments, and the provision of an additional office for the Imri.al ol unbaplised children, as nbo for the burial ol thoeo for whom the present Prayer Book servin'* cannot he used, will he generally accepiable.