CHARGES OF RITUALISM.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 170, 18 July 1919, Page 6

CHARGES OF RITUALISM.

THE CHRISTCHURCH CASE. * " c JUDGMENT OF BISHOPS. c t SOME PRACTICES CONDEMNED. jj j(By Association.) DUNEDTN. Thursday. a The Court of Appeal of tho Church of t the Province of New Zealand delivered _ judsment to-day in the case Archdeacon v C. H. Cosset v. the Rev. R. C. E. Perry 1, This was an appeal from the judgment t of the Bishop of Christchurch in a case t brought in the Bishop's Court, Christ- i. church, wherein Archdeacon Charles p Hillso-rove Cosset. Lower Riccarton, t made 3 certain charges against the Rev. Perry, vicar of St. Michael's and All i) Angels. ° THE RESERVED SACRAMENT. d The first charge was that on various c occasions Mr Perry reserved part of th* „ consecrated bread and wine, instead or c the whole suit of consecrated elements v which remained to be consumed, in ac- 1 cordance with the rules to that effect. It t was alleged also that this practice was <_ contrary to the 28th article of religion and the provisions of clause 2, canon 2, g title D. £ The court stated that the 28th article, „ so far as it dealt with the question of t reservation, did not forbid or condemn 1 the practice- It did not appear to the t court that the reservation was neces- c sarily condemned by this article. The t allegation that the practice was contrary r to clause 2, canon 2. title D. raised a very different question. The charge amounted to this, that Mr Perry, by reserving the Sacrament, used an order or t form not authorised, and therefore re- 1 fused or neglected to use the form di- j rected to be used. His defence was that J be was authorised to reserve the Sacra- J ment by his bishop, and that it was J otherwise ordered by lawful authority. * The Bishop of Christchurch decided in * Mr Perry's favour. It was the opinion < of members of the court, except the s Bishop of Auckland, that the decision of the Bishop of Christchurch was right. l The court held it clear that the reser- * vation of the Sacrament was not con- f trary to any doctrine of the church, and that the practice had rjceome a question of order or form, in regard to the permissibility of which the bishop is the lawful - authority ■contemplated by the canon. The second charge was complementary j to the first, and was governed by the decision thereon. The court stated that it was not quite ' clear what offence was alleged in section A of the third change, or—although he appeared to have admitted the fact—how j Mr Perry could cause others or another to do as alleged. If the teaching of any doctrine such as the corporal [ire- . sence of the Lord in the reserved ele- , ments was alleged and could be taken to be admitted such would undoubtedly contravene both the article and the canon. With regard to B (use of a '. prayer entitled a. colloquy before the reserved Sacrament) the court did not consider there was any false teaching in the 1 colloquy, nor that to use it in the manner alleged indicated a belief that the Sacrament would have a wholesome effect on the operation, apart from being worthily received, but it regarded the practice as foreign to the mind and teaching of the church. The conditions laid down by the Bishop of Christchurch for the reservation in future took away . the opportunity for such practice. ' INVOCATION OF THE VIRGIN. In regard to C, the court stated that if Mr Perry, by admission of the truth ' of the facts alleged, meant that he in- ' 1 tentionally taught and advisedly main--1 tamed the invocation of the Blessed ' Virgin Mary, it was the opinion of the court that such teaching was contrary to ' the 22nd article of the religion, and clause 1. canon 2, title D. It was very ' much open to question, however, if Mr Perry's admission could be taken as more j than an admission of the use of words, j ! and the use of words did not necessarily 1 ' involve the invocation of the Blessed 1 Virgin. In which case, there was no ' teaching contrary to the article of the | ' canon. '■ With regard to the charge that in a chaplet, Mr Perry prescribed vain repetitions, the court agreed with the Bishop of Christchurch that they were not such as were condemned by our Lord, and could scarcely be counted vain. ] The fourth charge was neglect to use the form appointed for the administration of Sacraments, in that the celebrant at St. Michael's did. on more than one occasion, turn to the people and hold towards tliem the consecrated bread. I with the words, "Behold the Lamb of 3 1 God." r The court agreed with the Bishop of 'Christchurch that the practice was with- • ', out authority of any kind. -j Tiie fifth charge rpfcrred to the ringing 1 of the beil after the -consecration of the t. bread and wine. The court said it did "•.not appear from the charge whether the t.church bell or the sacring bell was used j >;a« part of service. Tin- Bishop of j 1: Christchurch had dealt with both, and lithe court atrreed with his judgment. ' ?j The sixth charge was that, on a special .occasion, the celebrant used an Kpistle rand Gospel other than thocc prescribed, I used an Kpistle and Gospel from the -1 Roman use, and added a prayer to the p prayer of consecration, and "celebrated II himself without other communicant-. ij The court said it appeared before the c proceedings that the Bishop of Christ- ! clitiiclt hud admonished .Mr Perry, who had agreed to accept the ruling. As the admonition had been acted on, the court thought the matter need not be further t.ealt with. USE OF A TABERNACLK. The offence alleged in the .seventh charge appeared to the court to be encouraging and constantly permitting people to habitually kneel and prostrate ■ s themselves during the saying of the »- Nict-ne Creed- It appeared" to the vourt '- that no question of doctrine was in--0 voived. but the priest had no authority : tjto direct the people to assume any uttid tude contrary to that prescribed 'in the :o rubric. P In the eighth charge and court's judgment thereon, the Tabernacle ivas dealt with a,s an alleged unlaiMful ornament, apart from any question as to its purpose as a receptacle of the reserved Sacrament. If the Tabernacle was regarded as a receptacle for the reserved •dements the. c-ourt agreed with the Bishop of Christchurch, who had ordered us its removal. As to the name alleged to ; n have been improperly assigned to the =t' c-hapel, the court held* thai if there had , P | been an authorised change in name it ,r,j would appear to be more a matter for •d the Christchurch property trustees of the ls | diocese. , c ! In regard to the light continually bnrnjg'ing before the Tabernacle, or immedi i t lately before the consecrated bread and m j wine, the court agreed with the action of ot the Bishop of Christchurch, who had ~|| ordered its removal. t0 The next charges were that a crucifix i. was placed on the wall above the pulpit in St. Michael's, and that Mr Perry per-

mitted, or encouraged, people to bow j before it with averment, Such acts amounted to worshipping or adoration of such image. With regard to the use of the crucifix on the processional cross, the court stated that the Bishop of Christchurch held that the use was not contrary to the articles or the canon, and it had heard nothing to convince it that he was wrong. CONFESSION ENJOINED. £ Regarding the charge that Mr Perry, in BJ an article in the parish magazine, taught that confession and absolution there- a after were necessary, even for those ff walking earnestly with God, the court f( held that such doctrine was contrary to d the authorised teaching or doctrine of the Church. It was for the Bishop of a Christchurch to decide what, if any, penalty should be imposed in respect of this offence. _. The next charge was that Mr Perry, . in the parish magazine, published certain jj doctrines or teachings on the subject of fasting in Communion, contrary to the doctrine of the Church. While the p court agreed that fasting in Communion , was a laudable custom in the Church, it could not accept the statement that it was a rule laid down by the Church. Mr „ Perry's teaching appeared to the court „ to be contrary to the teaching of the - Church. , The next charge was that Mr Perry 1 gave the consecrated bread and wine grudgingly, and without words of administration to-certain persons whom ho believed to have come without fasting. , The offence appeared to lie in omitting . the words of administration, contrary to l" clause 2. canon 2, title D. It was for ' n the Bishop of Christchurch to say what a penalty, if any, should be imposed- ? BONDAGE OF PRAYER BOOK. p In general comments the court said ■ there was no doubt that when the revised v I prayer book had been sanctioned by an r Act of Parliament, the Church in New a Zealand would have an opportunity of s declaring its mind on various matters, h but it appeared in the meantime, unless t there was to be a complete legal bondage, 0 the bishops must be allowed to exercise I discretion, and make orders for quieting t and appeasing doubts and diversities. s Costs incidental to the appeal are to a be taxed by the chancellor of the diocese c of Dunedin. and paid by the appellant ° and respondent in equal proportions. 1 Judgment was signed by the Primate, Bishops of Wellington and VVaiapu. - In a separate judgment the Bishop of a Auckland said he could not concur with the others in regard to the first and t second charges!. He held that so fur as t the Church in New Zealand was concerned there was at present no lawful authority to order the reservation of the Sacrament 1 for any purpose. I n his opinion, the reservation of the Sacrament for any purpose was contrary to the sixth rubric at the end of the Communion oflice. Heagreed, however, that the reservation of the .Sacrament was not necessarily contrary to any doctrine of the Church. He strongly approved of the reservation for { tho sick, but only in extreme cases, when l ( specially desired, and so that it would he -1 administered at once. He concurred in ■' the rest of the judgment, and agreed as to the need for the revision °of the ' prayer book. f.