CHURCH TROUBLES

Hokitika Guardian, 21 October 1927, Page 2

CHURCH TROUBLES

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.)

LONDON, Oct. If). In an "Open Letter” to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rt. Rev. Dr (Ramos (Bishop of Birmingham) says that lie ‘‘has found that modern knowledge has withered the traditional formulas, replacing them with a wistful agnosticism.” He (Dr Barnes) long ago began to expound why man’s evolution from an ape-like stock did not upset the Christian position. Dr Barnes goes on to say that tho growth of erroneous sacramental doctrines alienated educated people from the Church. Mediaeval theories that rejected the Reformation were still being taught in the Anglican Churches.

Dr Barnes states that a new era lias been opened when a Bishop could lie publicly attacked for upholding traditional sacramental doctrine. He reaffirms his belief that there is no truth in Transuhstantiation, and says: “Nobody can discriminate between consecrated and nil consecrated bread.” He adds: “No man shall drive me to Tennessee or to Rome. Officers of our National church must not fear, but must welcome new knowledge, and maintain all that is sound in ancient doctrine.” LONDON. Oct. 19. Dean luge lias sent a letter to tho Rev. Mr Bullock Webster, ns follows: “ Since you have had the impertinence to write me in connection with last Sunday. I must reply tliqt, until you fully apologise for the scandalous and disgraceful brawling, 1 refuse to have any communication with you whatever.” LONDON. Oct. 19. Rev. Mr Webster, replying to Dean Inge, says: “ Before the' idea of an apology can he entertained. 1 am constrained to ask you till 1 v and publicly to express regret for your outraging the feelings ot devout ( hurcll people' by inviting to tho Cathedral one who constantly delaines the Holy Sacraments." LONDON. Oet. 20. The " Morning Post “ says: I he unhappy cleavage arising from the doctrine ot l'i aussubstauliation. ranging tho Anglo t'atholies on one side, and tho Evangelicals on the other, was bound to load to a definite explosion

within the church. Bishop Barnes, however, assumes a tremendous responsibility when he forces the issue, and when he challenge a struggle. It seems impossible that the Archbishop of Canterbury can ignore the latter. Meantime, those who loo! that the continued vitality and cohesion of the Church of England is an essential basis for the safety, honour, and welfare of these Dominions can only pray to God to lighten our darkness and appease the passions which seem oil the point of being let loose in His name. |