ANGLICAN CHURCH

Hokitika Guardian, 1 October 1928, Page 4

ANGLICAN CHURCH

THE NEW BOOK. PARTIAL AUTHORISATION. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright). LONDON, Sept. 28. The Archbishops of Canterbury and' York have issued an important statement on the Prayer Book question, “setting forth the principles whicfT the Bishops generally are prepared to follow in the administrative action necessitated by,, the acknowledged inadequacy of the existing law, and varieties of usage which already prevail.”

The statement is as follows:—“During the present- emergency, and until further order, the Bishops cannot regard as inconsistent with 'loyalty to the Church’s principles the use of such additions and deviations as are contained in the 1928 book, as fall within the limit of their proposals, but must regard as inconsistent with such loyalty any other deviations and additions to the 1662 hook. Accordingly, the Bishops are exercising legal administrative discretion, and will endeavour to secure that practices inconsistent with (both the 1662 and 1928 books shall cease. Further, the Bishops regard it as a governing principle that no departure from the 1662 book shall be permitted at public services, unless the Parochial Council agrees with the incumbent.

The Bishops recommend, firstly, permission to use “the Consecration causon” contained in the 1928 hook should only !be granted provisionally, and in exceptional circumstances subject to such conditions as the Bishops determine. They regard variations and additions to the Holy Communion of the 1662 book, except what the Bishops sanction, in accordance with the alternative order in the 1928 book as irregularities which must cease. Secondly, the Rubrics for Reservation will further be considered by a committee of Bishops. Meanwhile, the Bishops recommend that while the existing permissions affecting Reservation for the sick, as contemplated in the alternative order, should continue further permissions should > be provis-i ional only. The statement concludes: that in view of the whole situation, the Bishops frankly recognise they are not without a share in the blame for the difficulties in recent years. They appeal to churchmen, clerical and lay, for loyal co-operation' in this fresh endeavour to restore peace so the wholP body may devote itself more wholeheartedly to its tasks. ' l ' The Hierarchy wish it clearly understood that their conclusions are at • present only informal and provisional, and intended for their own guidance in consulting the clergy and Formal action, whether Diocesan o? general must be postponed until the > Bishops obtain the results of these consultations and until the question of full official sanction has been considered.

THE BISHOPS CRITICISED. LONDON, Sept. 28v An authority on Church law, writing in the “Daily Herald,’ asserts that the Archbishops’ decision means a defiance of Parliament’s refusal to legalise the 1928 Prayer Book, which, he says, is now made useable so long . as certain Romish practices are stopped. - f The “Daily Telegraph’s” ecclesiastical correspondent points out that this is a virtual authorisation of the 1928 Book. He asks: Are the Bishops above the law? „ LONDON, Sept. 28. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s secretary announces that, the Bishops’ next conference is expected in December or January.

COMMENT ON BISHOPS. (Received this day at 8 a.m.) LONDON, , Sept. 30. The Hon. Secretary states the Bishop’s decision is of such far reaching importance that it will require consideration before statementing. LONDON, Sept. 30. A Protestant Alliance statement regards the Bishop’s Prayer Book conclusions as deplorable, because they entirely ignore the decision of Parliament, which emphatically expressed the nation’s will. The Bishops recommend a continuance of the existing permission for reservation, though Parliament .specifically condemned it. The Bishops claim to authorise a service which the highest court in the land declared illegal. .