MEMORABLE EVENT

Wairarapa Age, 9 February 1927, Page 5

MEMORABLE EVENT

IN CHURCH OF ENGLAND HISTORY. PRAYER BOOK REVISION. ARCHBISHOP’S EXPOSITION. LONDON, February 7. The most important ecclesiastical event in the Church of England in living memory, took place to-day, when the Convocations within the dioceses of Canterbury and York met at Church House, Westminster, to receive from the Archbishops a draft copy of the Revised Prayer Book, consisting of nearly 400 pages. The Archbishop of Canterbury, presenting the revision, said that a new background had been given to men’s minds as the result of war experiences, and it had become inevitable that there must be some modification in the direction of enrichment or elasticity, some facility for less rigid thought, if they were not to get out of touch with a greater number of present-day familiar thoughts. Though the new book was termed provisional and subject to amendment, it was in a larger sense final.

He was aware that their brethren overseas were watching their deliberations keenly. Perhaps none would regard the new book as an ideal alternative, but he believed that it would meet the requirements of many who felt that their requirements had not been met hitherto. He believed that it would draw closer some now disunited, though some might be disappointed. Summarising the proposals, the Archbishop of Canterbury said in part that tho new book was permissive and in no sense forced upon unwilling members of the Church. It was composite, as it contained the' old Prayer Book The majority of changes dealt wholly with uneontroversial things, permitting a shortening of the Litany; making the use of the Athanasian Creed voluntary; enriching the Office for the Burial of the Dead; and omitting some references to Old Testament patriarchs from the Orders for Baptism and Matrimony. CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS. Turning to matter which, he said, eould not be called uneontroversial, the Archbishop continued: “On Holy Communion wo adopted your own suggested rubric. In regard to clergy vesture, we are giving sanction fior the optional use of an alternative order for Communion. This, no doubt, will be challenged in some quarters, but I am sanguine that we have found a satisfactory solution of the problem. “Regarding the anxious question of the reservation of the consecrated elements for the Communion of the sick, there jw-no question that a demand has grown up which calls for consideration. Accordingly, tho rubrics provide for the reservation of the elements to be used for the Communion of the sick and for no other purpose. The conditions under whieh we authorise reservation are set forth with unmistakable clearness in the proposed rubrics.

“Other alterations include the deletion of the word ‘obey’ in the bride’s responses. Both the bride’s and bridegroom ’s responses will lie identical. Tho new prayers proposed to meet modern requirements, are for the peace of tho world; for the League of Nations; for election times; for seafarers; for industrial peace. The Burial Service contains a permissive prayer, less stern and gloomy than the existing committal prayer, and referring directly to the dead person. Permission is also given under certain conditions ta use an extempore prayer. “It is an experiment whieh seme will deem rash. Its possible danger is indisputable, but we believe that on the whole it will be a great gain. “Having summarised what seems to me the more important proposals, let me say emphatically that in my deliberate judgment nothing we have suggested makes any change in the doctrinal position of the Church of England. . . Those who find in the old Prayer Book all they desire can rest content in these pastures still.” Concluding, the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out that to-day was the anniversary of his 25th year aa Archbish<jp,™(A. and N.Z.) NOT OF ANY PARTY. INTEREST IN THE REUSED BOOK (Received Tuesday, 7.35 p.m.) LONDON, February 8. The deep interest in the revision of the Prayer Book is shown in the prominence with which it is displayed in both the evening and morning newspapers. The “Daily Telegraph,” besides an editorial, devote* sixteen columns to it, setting out lengthy passages in parallel columns. The book will be available to the public this ;uorning in paper covers at half-a-erown. In the next stage, the alterations will be submitted to the Convocation again on February 22, for return to the Bishops for final revision on March 2, and finally will be presented to the Convocation on March 29, to lhe Church Assembly on July 7, and submitted to Parliament in the autumn.

The “Morning Post” says editorially: “We have reluctantly to confess that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York avoid the main issue, which >s why alter the Book of Comnien Pis' .-r at all? The inspired wisdom of the original framers insisted upon a uniform use. The proposals for revision are particularly unfortunate at a time when the need of laity is for definite authoritative guidance. A revised Prayer Book must lead to endless (•infusion, whieh is not mended by tho suggestion that the Parochial Church Council should decide which usue-. should be adopted. We cannot believo that either the Church or Parliament, will accept the revision.” The “Daily Telegraph” says: “It must be borne in mind that the new book is not offered as likely for « moment to satisfy completely any sin, gle section of churchmen. It is'sul.mitted as the only kind of alternative book for whieh the rulers of t!.. Church at the present juncture e:n> anticipate general acceptance. It has at least the merit that it is not a book of any party in the Church. Probablit is not the ideal of any single perse t and should it receive legal sanction, t will yet be no more than a perinissibl.alternative to tho book of 1062. It. will be on probation long after it hrs received the imprimatur of Church amt State.”—(A .and N.Z.)