THE NEW PRAYER BOOK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19792, 12 November 1927, Page 14

THE NEW PRAYER BOOK.

DISCIPLINE BY BISHOPS.

DESIRE FOR INFORMATION.

EX-AUCKLANDER'S VIEWS.

[FROM our own correspondent.] LONDON, Sept. 30. The Rev. Henry D. A. Major, previously of Auckland, and now principal of Ripon Hall, Oxford, enters into the controversy on the new Prayer Book. "There are two main points," he writes in a letter to the Times, "on which we desire precise and convincing statements from those in a position to make them. "What will the liturgical powers of the episcopate be under the provisions of the deposited book or the proposed Prayer Book measure ? We know that the English bishops in pre-Reformation times exercised large liturgical powers. This jus iiturgicum was, for very good reasons, greatly restricted at the Reformation, and has remained restricted ever since. Since then the bishop's liturgical authority has been confined to providing that <;he Prayer Book services and none other are duly performed by his clergy in their official ministrations in his diocese.

The bishop was further empowered in cases of doubt to interpret tho Prayer Book rubrics, subject always to the right of appeal to the archbishop and, if needs be, from the archbishop to the Crown, Is this liturgical power of the episcopate increased under the provisions of the Prayer Book measure or is it restricted exactly as it has been ever since the Reformation ? This, it will be clear, is a most important question and demands a decisive and definite answer.

Enforcing Liturgical Obedience. " The second point concerns tho powers of the episcopate to enforce liturgical obedience from the clergy. To secure liturgical loyalty and order was one of the main purposes of Prayer Book revision. The bishops complained that they were powerless to secure it for at least two reasons: —(a) the prosecution of recalcitrant clergy was a very prolonged, troublesome and expensive business; (b) the penalty inflicted on the recalcitrant clergyman—namely, imprisonment for contempt of Court—was quite wrong. Suspension and deprivation were what was needed. Have the episcopate taken steps to secure for themselves powers by which in simple, inexpensive fashion they can enforce liturgical obedience ? This is again a most important question, and we need a clear and convincing answer to it. It is vain to tell us that the episcopate unitedly and severally are pledged to enforce liturgical obedience; it is also vain to tell us that they look to moral suasion, public opinion and a new sense of loyalty and order in the clergy to enable them to secure liturgical obedience. Unless they have got a short and simple legal method of dealing with liturgical lawbreakers these things cannot secure liturgical order. And the reason is this: a powerful section of the clergy are convinced, on principle, that they owe liturgical obedience, not to the local episcopate, but to Catholic practice.

" Our authorities (ecclesiastical and legal) would do much to strengthen the hands of those who seek the authorisation of the deposited book if they would give us precise and convincing information on these two points. May we not look to those who alone can speak with authority to do so ?