PRAYER BOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1928, Page 4

PRAYER BOOK

EPISCOPAL DILEMMA

EFFORT TO SATISFY CRITICS

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.)

LONDON, Jan. 20. \ prayer lor the King every motning and evening throughout the veal, the printing of a black Rubric forbidding adoration of the Sacrament, at the end of the alternative Communion Service, and the incorporation of explicit rules regarding the Reservation of the Sacrament appear to he the chief features of the amended Prayer Book which lias officially been issued with supplementary lorins ol service. The Book will be submitted to tb Church Assembly on February 6th, and. if the consent of the various orders are thereafter obtained, the Archbishops expec-t to submit it to Parliament before the ’Whitsuntide.

In an explanatory note, the Bishops refer to avoidable misunderstandings in the House of Commons, and they say that the new measure endeavours to remove them. Ibe first amendment of the previous measure deals with a clause which, according to the Archbishops, has been interpreted as giving the Archbishops power to make rules, having tlio lorfc oi Rubrics, go\cining the (Lurch of England's entire public

worship. Another ( lause makes it eleai that the Prayer Book available for use at the ordinal ion of those clergy who conscientiously object to i lie deposited Prayer Book is the existing Prayei Book of I(l(i2. Regarding the amendments in tin l deposited Rook', the Aiclihisliops refer to the hostility shown to the leaving of the King’s prayers to the disc ret i*n of the Minister. The purpose oi this was to prevent repetion, hut it is now provided that one of the prayers for His Majesty shall a I wavs he said, morning and evening.

The Archbishops point out that the rejected Prayer Book was intended to make it clear that the consecrated bread and wine wore reserved solely for Communion for the sick, and also that there should not be either service or ceremony in connection therewith. I nit it was urged that the Rubrics did not sufficiently safeguard these conditions, and. as example of the Archbishops’ and Bishops’ powers to rule upon questions arising, it was contended that the rules could he changed. Therefore, the amended Prayer Book contains most important rules with the Rubric in a more explicit form. *he amended Prayer Book, they point out. furthermore provided that the consci rated bread ami wine shall he reserved in an aumbry, or in a sale, sc in the north or south wall ol the church, or of a chapel thereof, or in the wall of the vestry. The Archbishops say that the

changes now made seem to he lew, hut it must not he i bought that they are unimportant, in i icw ol the stress of the critics both inside and outside Parliament.

The Clause relating to the Reservation of the Sacrament provides that the door of the A’mbiir.v shall he kept locked, and that it must not he ex-

posed or removed except for ihc purpose of Communion or on the event o 1 consumption. The elements shall he renewed at least weekly.

CRISIS RENEWED. LONDON. Jan. 21

There are already signs that the new Prayer Book changes will arouse a fresh storm of controversy. The trend ol th.e comment indicates that the opposition may even he stronger than before. because the alterations are regarded as being negligible. ihe Anglo-Catholies certainly will resist the new Rubric.

The Protestants condemn the action if the Bishops as a challenge to the I louse of (’ominous.

Bishop Barnes’s long statement is being given prominence, and it will . ovitably rally all the forces that are in opposition to the new Prayer Book. Sound authorities opine that it will lie most difficult for the Archbishops to get the measure through the Church Assembly and through Convocations in time for the present Parliament before Whitsuntide.

The " Morning Post ” says; We cannot avoid regret that the perfectly legitimate action of the House of Commons should be taken up by the leaders of the Church as a gage of battle. The issue, however, is now decided. Tin conflict must end in the briefest period, in either a new and more significant rebuff to the Kpicopaey, or the passage of a measure which, as it stands, offends the conscience of a very large number of loyal members of the Anglican Church.

'I!:e " Daily Telegraph ” says: In view of their pledges to make no fundamental changes, and their acute consciousness of the strength of Protestant feeling, the Bishops have made what is probably the best emergence from the dilemma, hut it cannot he said to hold much promise of satisfying any hut a few of the malcontents. If. as seems likely, it makes new opponents, the last state is worse than the first. M A LINES COXYKRSATIONS. NO ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE POPE. ROME. Jan. 20. The paper “ Osservatorc Rinoano,” the official organ of the Vatican, de- ■ lares there will certainly he no resumption of the -Unliiies conversations with the ‘consent or encouragement of the Rope, who, though interested therein, regards them merely as an affair between mandateless negotiators.

DR BARNES BREAKS AWAY. ‘ LONDON, Jan. 20. The Bishop of Birmingham, Dr Barnes, has definitely broken with the majority of his Episcopal colleagues by issuing a statement denouncing the latest revision of the Prayer Book, and also by disclosing to some extent, tlie unpublished proceedings at Lambeth Palace. He says; “The latest revision is gravely inadequate. Little lias been done to remove the objectionable features of the new Book, or to lessen misgi\ir.gs that were expressed in Parliament. The recent private debates of the House of Bishops have increased my serious concern. 1 feel that i is niv duty to indicate to my fcllmvv inirchnien why I cannot accept the new proposals. From the beginning 7 have protested against secrecy. The newspapers should have been allowed to attend all the important debates.’’ He says that other Bishops oppose secrecy. As he attended by right, no’ by invitation, lie feels himself at liberty to describe what happened. He goes on: “My first duty is to the L.lurch and the nation, and this must override the wishes of my colleagues. It is true that a black Rubric has been added as an alternative Communion, but tins will he regarded as a concession to what lias been called ignorant Protestantism. Some casuists even maintained that the Rubric upholds the doctrine of the Real Presence. This may be absurd, but the black Rubric does not safeguard sound Church doctrine. Yet the Bishops have rejected a proposal to insert in the Prayer Book r simple statement setting forth the Church’s (fbctrinSi upon Communion. Tit a only other important changes mw

made relate to Reservation. This subject would arouse more misgivings than any change suggested in the deposited Rook.”

Dr Barnes said that speakers in the House of Commons had reflected the opinion of the vast number of loyal Churchmen, when they objected to this change. Yet the majority of the Bishops at the recent conference, again refused to exclude continuous Reservation. They rejected a motion for tlu prohibiting of the clergy from reserving the elements in places where worship is customarily held. They also rejected a proposal to forbid the clergy from indicating by a lamp or otherwise the place where the elements are reserved. As a result, he says, the elements may be reserved in an elaborate, canopied aumbry on the chancel wall, with flowers, candles and a lamp, and also with a notice stating that: “This Church possesses special sanctity because the Blessed Sacrament is here reserved.” Dr Barnes says that, furthermore, the Bishops are empowered to sanction devotional services before the Sacrament if certain words arc used, even i the Bishop refuses a reservation license.

lie declares: “ All the abuses of continuous reservation will become possible by easy contrivances. Continuous Reservation only arises because some of the clergy contend that they cai: only receive Communion when fasting, thereby implying that a non-fasting Communion is sinful. The Bishops have rejected a proposal reaffirming that it is the Church’s undoubted teaching that a non-fasting Communion is not sinful.” Dr Barnes also complains that the Bishops also have rejected repeated suggestions ns to withholding from lawless .clergy payments from tie Ecclesiastical Comm issi oners and from Queen Anne’s bounty, lie says: “ The House of Commons, during a historic debate, showed religious sincerity and goodwill towards the Church. We Bishops should respond thereto; but, by the action of our majority, we fail in this duty. The House of Commons almost necessarily,.must reject the present proposals. The Episcopal majority may then say: “If we cannot have continuous Reservation, etc., we must ask for disestablishment of the Church.’ I conceive that the reply to that would be a stern, far-reaching measure whereby no endowments would be available for Catholic propaganda within the Church of England. In such a dispute the Church would bo ruined.” LONDON. Jan. 22.

Eonr hundred demonstrators at St. Cuthbert’s again protested at the sung Eucharist. "When the curate, Rev. A. Crawshaw, accompanied by Servers, arrived at the altar, the demonstrators began singing hymns, and Crawshaw retired. When the singing stopped, he returned, causing a renewal of the hymns of which ten were sung. Crawshaw apparently completed the service and retired. During the ninth hymn a man began to read the .‘list article from the i rayor Book, declaring the mass blasphemous. Two hundred demonstrators left the Church when Laurie began a service. Demonstrations were resumed in the streets and after the service police escorted Laurie to his home. LONDON. Jan. 2T The Times' Belfast correspondent says: Do-tor Darcy. I’riinate of all Ireland, says: It is slnrlinglv clear that *a successful out on e of the .Valine’s movement would destroy (lie

l’rolestau rharacler of the Churc'i of England, and would also completely alter the position of all Ihe church'’:, in connection th-crewß’’. The Church of Ireland will have nothing to do with the Moline's r.epoiialinns.” declares the I’rimate. “Histurv will show Hint 1 1 1 .- English people, while tolernn' and slow to- move, will rev-m* surrender freedom or bend Heir necks beoea'h spiritual despot ism.”