Elevation of Host

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 400, 14 July 1928, Page 10

Elevation of Host

Protestant Bodies Protest In Sydney CLERGYMEN DIFFER Considerable opposition has been shown in Sydney by a certain section owing to the Roman Catholic decision to elevate the Host in the Eucharist Congress procession. These clergymen are now having differences among themselves. The Rev. S. H. Cox, convener of the delegation of representatives of the Congregational Union to the New - South Wales Council of Churches, charged certain clergymen with concealing from Mr. Bavin, the Premier, at a recent deputation the fact that the Council of Churches, which they claimed to represent, had decided to rescind its protest against the elevation of the Host in the Eucharist procession. Mr. Cox has sent the following statement to the Premier; “The Ministers who appeared before you and spoke on behalf of an alleged deputation from the New South Wales Council of Churches, have grossly misled you.’ Each of them—Revs. Dr. Baldock, president, Victor Bell, secretary, P. J. Stephen, vice-president, and D. F. Brandt, was present at the last meeting of the council on Tuesday, June 5, and voted with all those present in favour of the rescinding of the first motion of protest ‘against the elevation of the Host’ (in the Roman Catholic Eucharistic procession) adopted last March, by tne council. Although the original protest was sent to, and published by the newspapers, no notice, this month was sent, as to the protest being rescinded. Candour Sought

“The motion adopted in March was proposed by a great Methodist leader, Rev. Dr. J. E. Carrutilers. The rescinding of that motion was moved on Tuesday, June 5 (nearly four weeks ago) by the same Dr. Carruthers, and seconded by me. “The grounds advanced by Dr. Carruthers were that the majority of the Protestant bodies—i.e., the Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, Salvation Army, and Society of Friends—had officially declined to participate in the protest, which protest included an appeal to your Government to prohibit the public elevation of the Host, “In view of this practically unanimous decision of the council, this month—by what right did a small minority appeal to you as if they represented the whole council? Why did they not candidly inform you of the above facts? Is not such concealment dishonest? Is not this lack of candour and honour calculated to in jure the ‘constructive campaign for Protestant principles’—upon which the council has agreed unanimously? “The members of the council win appeared before you merely took advantage of your promise, made before you took ill—to receive a deputation; and when, after the lapse oi weeks, you were kind enough to honour your promise, these members o' the council (according to published reports) concealed from you the essential fact, that the council’s overwhelming vote on June 5 rendered such a deputation no longer necessary Surely honest Protestants will stand amazed at guch duplicity.” “Duplicity” An Ugly Word The secretary of the Council of Churches (the Rev. Victor Bell) said that he regretted that Mr. Cox had taken the action he had and used the word “duplicity,” which was an ugly word. It was true that the decision to protest against the elevation of the Host was rescinded in June, but Mr. Uox. apparently was unaware that it was also decided to writd to the Premier, Mr. Bavin, directing his attention to the existence of the Party Processions Protection Act, particularly in its application to the Eucharistic procession. s All he had done was to follow out the instructions of the council. The letter was written and replied to, and m the reply Mr. Bavin had asked that a deputation should wait upon him to discuss the matter —the Party Processions Protection Act. He had only two days iu which to arrange the deputation, and after consultation with the president of the council, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Waldoek, it had been decided to wait upon Mr. Bavin. Dr .Waldoek, who said that the visit was hardly in the nature of a deputation, corroborated the remarks of Mr. Bell. At the discussion with the Premier, he said there were some unauthorised persons who rather took matters out of their hands. After the council had decided to

protest in May, it was resolved, m view of other Churches having taken little interest in the matter, to let it drop. This was done in June. In the meantime, the Premier was communicated with in relation to the legal aspect of the procession, and, in reply to his request, the deputation waited upon him. The Premier’s request to meet him had placed Mr. Bell and himself in a:i awkward position. It was felt that it would he a discourtesy to decline to wait upon Mr. Bavin as requested. “I consider that we still represented the Council of Churches, despite the decision to let the matter drop.” r the Rev. D. F. Brandt. “To the best of my recollection, the only bodies who refused to protest were the Society o' Friends and the Congregational Union.”