REVISION DENOUNCED

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 21 January 1928, Page 7

REVISION DENOUNCED

BISHOP BARNES DISSENTS.

OPPOSITION TO SECRECY. DUTY TO NATION. BY CABLE—PEESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT. Received 3 p.m. to-day. LONDON, Jan. 20. Bishop Barnes has definitely broken with the majority of his colleagues by issuing a statement denouncing the latest revision of the prayer book; also disclosing to some extent, the unpublished proceedings at Lambeth Palace. He says the latest revision is gravely inadequate. Little has been done to remove the objectionable features in the new book or lessen the misgivings expressed by Parliament. “Recent private debates in the House by the bishops increased my serious concern and I feel it my duty to indicate to my fellow churchmen why I cannot accept the new proposals,” said Bishop Barnes. “From the beginning I protested against secrecy. ’ ’ The newspapers should have been allowed to attend all the important debates, but other bishops opposed the suggestion. As he attended; by right and not by invitation he feels himself at liberty to describe what happened. , “My first duty,” he continues, “is to the church and the nation, and I must over-ride the wishes of my colleagues. It is true that a black rubric has been added as an alternative communion, but it will 'be regarded as a concession to what has been called the ignorant Protestantism. Some causist? even maintain the rubric upholds the doctrine of the real presence. This may be absurd, but the black rubric does not safeguard sound church doetraine. Yet. the bishops 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 the reservation and arouse more misgivings than any change suggested in the deposited book.” “Speakers in the House of Commons reflected the opinion of a vast number of loyal churchmen when they object- ' cd to the change. Yet the majority of the 'bishops at the recent conference again refused to exclude continuous reservation. They rejected the motion prohibiting clergy from reserving the elements' in places where worship was customarily held. They also rejected the proposal to forbid clergy indicating by a lamp or otherwise the place where the elements were reserved. As the result the elements may be reserved in an elaborate canopied aumbry on the chancel wall with flowers, candles and lamp; also a notice stating that the church possesses special santicity because of the Blessed Sacrament there reserved. Furthermore, a'bishop is em powered to sanction devotional services' before the sacrament if certain words are used.

“Even if a bishop refuses the reservation license abuses of the continuous reservation become possible by easy contrivances. Continuous reservation only arises because some clergy contend they cau only receive communion when fasting, thereby implying tha*. non-fasting communion is sinful. Yet the bishops rejected a proposal reaffirming the church’s undoubted teaching that non-fasting communion is not sinful, and they also rejected repeated suggestions as to withholding from lawless clergy payments from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne’s bounty. “The House of Commons during the historic debate showed religious sincerity and goodwill towards the church. The bishops should respond thereto, but by the action of the majority they have failed in that duty.

“The House of Commons almost no cessarily must reject the present proposals. The episcopal majority may say that if we cannot have continuous reservation we must ask for disestablishment.. I conceive 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 'dispute, and the church would be ruined.’’—A.P.A. and “Sun.”