Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BISHOP BARNES

IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENTS (A.P.A. and "Sun.") (Received 21st January, 2.30 p.m.) LONDON, 20th January.' Bishop Barnes, of Birmingham, lias definitely broken with th© majority of his colleagues by issujug a statement denouncing the latest revision of the Prayer Book, and also disclosing to some extent the unpublished proceedings at Lambeth Palace. The Rev. Dr. Barnes says that the latest revision is gravely inadequate, and little has been done to remove the objectionable features of the now Book or to lessen the- misgivings expressed in Parliament. "The recent private debates in the House of Bishops have increased my serious concern," he says, "ami I feel it my duty to indicato to my fellow churchmen why I cannot accept the new proposals.'' He states that from the beginning he protested against any secrecy, and declared that tho newspapers should bo allowed to be represented at all tho important debates, to which other bisliops were opposed. As he attended by right and not by invitation lie feels himself at liberty to describe what happened. "My first duty is to the Church and nation," he continues, "and must override the wishes of my colleagues. It is true that a black rubric has been added as an alternative Communion, but. it will bo regarded as a concession to what has been called 'ignorant Protestantism' by some casuists, who even maintain that the rubric upholds the doctrino of the Real Presence. This may seem absurd, but tho black rubric does not safeguard sound church doctrine. Yet the bishops rejected a proposal to insert in the book a simple statement setting forth the Church's doctrine upon the Communion. The only other important changes relate to the reservation on this subject, and have aroused more misgivings than any other change suggested in the deposited b.ook.'' LOYAL CHURCHMEN. Those who spoke during the debate in the House of Commons, says Dr. Barnes, reflected the opinion of a vast number of loyal churchmen who had objected to any change, yet tho majority of the bishops at the recent conference again refused to exclude a continuous reservation. They rejected a motion prohibiting the clergy from reserving tho elements in places whore worship is customarily held, and also rejected a proposal to forbid tho clergy indicating by a lnmp or otherwise the place where the elements are reserved. As a result the elements may be reserved in an elaborate, canopied aumbry on the chancel wall with flowers, candles, and lamp. Also the 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, and even if the bishop refuses reservation it licenses all abuses in continuous reservation which become possible by easy contrivance. Continuous reservation only arises because some c" rgy contend that they can only receive the Communion when fasting, thereby implying that a non-fasting Communion is sinful, yet the bishops rejected a proposal reaffirming the Church's undoubted teaching that nonfasting Communion is not sinful, and also rejected repeated suggestions .withholding from lawless clergy payments from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's bounty. "The House of Commons, during the historic debate, showed its religious sincerity and goodwill towards the Church and we bishops should respond thereto, but by the action of our majority we fail in this duty," says the Bishop. I ACTION BY COMMONS. i Continuing, Dr. Barnes says that the House of Commons must almost nccSssarily reject the present proposals. Tho episcopal majority may then say that if they cannot have a continuous reservation, etcetera, they must ask for disestablishment. "I conceive that the reply would be ;i stern and far-reaching measure, whereby no endowments will be available for Catholic propaganda within Vhe Church of , England," said the Bishop. "In such a dispute the church would be ruined."

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19280121.2.83.2

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 17, 21 January 1928, Page 10

Word Count
644

BISHOP BARNES Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 17, 21 January 1928, Page 10

BISHOP BARNES Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 17, 21 January 1928, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert