THE PRAYER BOOK

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 86, 21 January 1928, Page 5

THE PRAYER BOOK

A REVISED MEASURE.

RESERVATION OF SACRAMENT.

CHANGES IN THE RUBRIC. 1 j, .—— ■'•.'. <Press Association— Copyright.) (Received This Day, 11.65 a.m V • LONDON, January 20. A prayer for the King every morning und evening throughout the year, the -printing in black of the rubric forbiddine the adoration of the Sacrament at the end of the alternative Communion service, and -the incorporation ol explicit rules regarding the reservation %i the Sacrament, appear as the chiel ♦features of the amended Prayer-Book, officially issued. ■ With the supplementary form ot service, it wall be submitted to the Church Assembly on February, 6, the ' -consent of the Houses is thereafter obtained, the Archbishops expect it will !hj presented to ParUament before Whitsuntide: £ . , , The Archbishops of Canterbury and Cork," in an explanatory note, refer to ihe avoidable misunderstandings in the House of 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, had been interpreted as giving Archbishops the power to make rules having thejorce <rf rubrics governing the Church ot .England's entire public worship. Another clause makes it clear that ihe Prayer-Book available for use at the ordination of clergy who conscien-

iiously object to the deposited book m the existing book of 1662. Regarding the amendment of the deaiosited book, "the Archbishops refer to Hostility to leaving the prayer for the King to the discretion of the minister. The purpose was to prevent repetition, lout it is 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 the Communion for the sick, aJwTthat there should not be a service v -or ceremony in connection therewith, hut it was urged that the rubrics insufficiently .Safeguarded these conditions; As an example of the power ot Archbishops and Bishops to rule upon questions arising, it was contended that the inles could be changed. Therefore the amepded book contains most Important rules., with the rubric in more form. The amended book furthermore provides .that consecrated bread and 'wine shall be reserved in an aumbry or safe set in the north; or asouth wall of the church or chapel, the ioof or walls 1 of rthe, vestry. ./:■■■■ j The • ArchWshops say, the changes seem few. but they must not be thougnx ■unimportant. * . . . , In view of the stress of critics inside and outside Parliament, the clause, relating to the'reservation of the bacrament provides that the door of the aumbry shall be kept locked and must 3jot be exposed or, removed except for the purpose of Communion or reverent consumption of the elements, which shall be renewed at least once a week.

BISHOP PROTEST.

<*DUTY TO FELLOW-CHURCHMEN."

' (Received This Day, 12.30 n.m.) LONDON, January 20. '' r Dr Barnes (Bishop of • Birmingham) las definitely broken with the majority of his colleagues hy issuing a statement denouncing the latest revision or the Prayer Book, also disclosing to some extent the unpublished proceedines at Lambeth Palace. .The Bishop says the latest revision is orravely inadequate. Little has been done to remove the objectionable features in the new book or to lessen tne misgivings expressed in Parliament. Dr. Barnes says: "Recent- private debates in the House of Bishops increased my serious concern. I feel it iny duty to indicate to my fellowchurchmen why-I cannot accent the mew prososals. From" the beginning 1 •protested against secrecy. Newspaper representatives should* have been allowed to attend all important debates. Other Bishops opposed this. As he attended by right and not by • invitation, Bishop Barnes says he feels himaelf at liberty to describe what happened. "My first duty," he says, tathe Church and the Nation and must War-ride the wishes of my colleagues. It is true, that the black rubric has been added as an alternative Communion, but will be regarded as a concession to what has been called ignorant Protestantism. Some casuists even ■ , maintain that the rubric unhold the doctrine of the real presence. This may be absurd, but the black rubric does not safeguard sound Church doctrine, jet the Bishons rejected the proposal to insert in the Book a simple statement setting forth the Church's doctrine upon Communion.- The only other important changes relate to reservation. This subject will arouse more misgivings than any change suggested in the deposited Book." Bishop Barnes continues: "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 reserving the elements in places where worshin was customarilv held. They also rejected a proposal to forbid indicating by a lamp or otherwise the place where the elements were reserved. As a result the elements may be reserved in a elaborate' canopied aumbry on. the chancel wall, with flowers, candles and lamps, also a notice stating that the-Church possesses a special Sanctity because the Blessed Sacrament is here reserved. Furthermore the Bishops are empowered to sanction devotional services before the Sacrament, if certain words are used. Even if a Bishop refuses a reservation license all the abuses continuous in reservation become possible by easy contrivances. Continuous reservation arises only because some clergy contend that Communicants can receive the Communion only when fasting, thereby implying that non-fasting Communion is sinful Yet Bishops rejected a proposal reaffirming the Church's undoubted teaching that non-fasfing Communion is not sinful. They, also •rejected repeated suggestions as to withholding from lawless clergy payments from ecclestical commissioners .and Queen Anne's bounty. .**The House of Commons during its

historic debate showed religious sincerity and goodwill toward the Onurch. 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 proposal. The episcopal majority may then say 'if we cannot have continuous reservation, etc., we must ask for establishment.' I conceive that the reply 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 wouid he ruined.