AMENDED PRAYER BOOK

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 258, 21 January 1928, Page 9

AMENDED PRAYER BOOK

Archbishops Explain Changes Few But Important By Cable. — Press Association. — Copyright Received 11.55 a.m. LONDON. Friday. THE Prayer for the King every morning and evening throughout the year, the printing of a black rubric forbidding the adoration and the Sacrament at the end of the alternative Communion Service, and the incorporation of explicit rules regarding the reservation of the Sacrament, appear to be the chief features of the amended Prayer Book, which has been officially issued with the supplementary form of service.

TT will be submitted to the Church - 1 - Assembly on February 6. arT it] the various consents are thereafter obtained, the archbishops expect it to be presented to Parliament before Whitsuntide. The Archbishop of Canterbury and York, in an explanatory note, refer to the avoidable misunderstandings in the Commons, and say the new measure endeavours to remove them. The first amendment of the previous measure deletes the clause which, according to the archbishops, has been interpreted as giving the archbishops power to make rules, having the force of rubrics, governing the Church of England’s entire public worship. Another clause makes it clear that the Prayer Book available for use at the ordination of clergy who conscientiously object to the deposited Book is the existing Book of 1662. Regarding the amendments to the deposited Book, the archbishops refer to the hostility to leaving the King’s prayers to the discretion of the minister. The purpose was to prevent repetition, but it now provided that one of the prayers for His Majesty shall 'always be said morning and evening. The archbishops point out that the rejected book was intended to make it clear that consecrated bread and wine were reserved solely for communion for the sick. Also there should not be a service or ceremony in connection therewith; but it was urged that the rubrics insufficiently safeguarded these conditions, and as an example of the archbishops’ and bishops’ power to nile upon questions arising, it was contended that the rules could be changed. Therefore, the amended book contains most important rules, with the rubrics in more explicit form. The amended book furthermore provided that consecrated bread and wine shall be reserved in an aumbry or safe set in the north or south wall of the church or chapel, the roof or wall of the vestry. The archbishops say the changes seem few, but they must not be thought unimportant, in view of the stress of the critics inside and outside Parliament. The clause relating to the reservation of the Sacrament provides that the door of the aumbry shall be kept locked and must not be exposed or removed except for the purpose of communion or reverent consumption of the elements, wihch shall be renewed at least weekly.

BISHOPS .ASSAILED SINCERITY OF COMMONS BARNES ATTACKS COLLEAGUES Dr. E. W. Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham, said that the speakers in the House of Commons reflected the opinion of a vast number of loyal churchmen when they objected to the change, yet the majority of the bishops at the recent conference again refused to exclude continuous reservation. They rejected a motion prohibiting the clergy from reserving the elements in plices where worship was customarily held, and also rejected a proposal to forbid the clergy from indicating by a lamp or otherwise the place where the elements were reserved. “As a result, the elements may be reserved in an elaborate canopied aumbry on the chancel wall, with flowers, candles and a lamp, also a

notice stating that the Church possesses special sanctity because the Blessed Sacrament is here reserved. “Furthermore, the bishops empoweral and sanction of devotional services before the Sacrament. If certain words were used. “Even if a bishop refuses the reservation licence, all the abuses of continuous reservation become possible by easy contrivances. Continuous reservation only arises because some of the clergy contend that they can only receive the Communion when fasting, thereby implying that non-fasting at Communion is sinful. Yet the bishops rejected a proposal reaffirming the Church’s undoubted teaching that a noil-fasting communion was not sinful, and also rejected repeated suggestions as to withholding from the lawless clergy payments from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne’s bounty. “The House of Commons, during the historic debate, showed a religious sincerity and goodwill toward th£ 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, ‘lf we cannot have continuous reservations, etc., we must ask for disestablishment.’ I conceive the reply would be a stern far-reaching measure, w-hereby no endowments would be available for Catholic propaganda within the Church of Engj land. In such a dispute the Church i would be ruined.”—A. and N.Z.