NEW PRAYER BOOK

Otago Witness, Issue 3854, 24 January 1928, Page 27

NEW PRAYER BOOK

A COMPROMISE PROPOSED.

CONTROVERSIAL POINTS AMENDED. LONDON, January 20. A prayer for the King every morning and evening throughout the year, the printing of a black rubric forbidding the adoration of the sacrament at the end of the alternative communion service, and the incorporation of explicit rules regarding the reservation of the sacrament appear to be the chief features of the amended Prayer Book which has been officially issued. With a supplementary form of service it will be submitted to the Church National Assembly on February 6, and if the various consents are thereafter obtained the archbishops expect it to be presented to Parliament before Whitsuntide.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in an explanatory note, refer to avoidable misunderstandings in the House of Commons, and say that the new measure endeavours to remove them.

The first amendment of the previous measure deletes the clause which, according to the archbishops has been interpreted as giving the archbishops power to make rules having the force of the rubrics governing the Church of England’s entire public worship.

Another clause makes it clear that the Prayer Book is available for use at the ordination of the clergy who conscientiously object to the deposited book instead of the book of 1662. Regarding amendments to the deposited book, the archbishops refer to the hostility to leaving the King’s prayers to the discretion of a minister. The purpose was to prevent repetition, but 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 clear that the consecrated bread and wine were reserved solely for communion for the sick, also that there should not be a service or ceremony in connection therewith ; but it was urged that the rubrics insufficiently safeguarded these conditions, and as an example of the archbishops’ and bishops’ power to rule upon the questions arising it was contended that the rules could be changed. Therefore the amended book contains most important rules, with the rubric in a more explicit form. The amended book furthermore provides that the consecrated bread and wine shall be reserved in an aumbry or safe set in the north or south wall of the church or chapel, or the roof or wall of the vestry. The archbishops say that the changes seem few, but they must not be thought unimportant in view of the stress of criticism inside and outside Parliament. The clause relating to the reservation of the sacrament provides that the door of the aumbry shall be kept locked, and must not be exposed or removed, except for the purpose of the communion or the reverent consumption of the elements, which shall be renewed at 1 mst weekly. All these new rubrics were printed on a fly-leaf in red and inserted in the new Prayer Book before it was presented to Parliament. BISHOP BARNES’S ACTION. BREAK WITH HIS COLLEAGUES. LONDON, January 20. Bishop Barnes has definitely broken with a 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. “ The latest revision is gravely inadequate,” he says. “ Little has been done to remove the objectionable features of the new Book or to lessen the misgivings expressed by Parliament i i the recent private debates of the House. The bishops have increased my serious concern, and I feel it my duty to indicate to my fellow-churchmen why I cannot accept the new proposals. “ From the beginning I have protested against secrecy. The newspapers should have been allowed to attend all important debates. As I attended by ”ight and not by invitation I feel at liberty to describe what happened. My first duty is to the Church and to the nation. It

is true that the black rubric has jcen • added as an alternative communion, but it . will be regarded as a concession to what has been called “ ignorant Protestantism.” Some casuists ever maintain that the rubric upholds the doctrine of the Real Presence. This may be absurd, but the black rubric does not Safeguard the- sound Church doctrine, yet the bishops rejected a proposal to insert in the book a simple statement setting forth the Cl’- -ch’s doctrine upon communion. The only other important .changes relate to reservation. This subject roused 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 objected to the change, yet the majority of tlie bishops at the recent conference again

refused to exclude continuous ’eservatioii. They rejected the motion prohibiting the clergy from reserving the elements in places where worship was customarily held, and also rejected the proposal to forbid the clergy indicating by lamp or otherwise the place where the elements were reserved. As a 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 sanctity because the blessed sacrament is here reserved. Furt? ermore, bishops are empowered to sanctiou devotional services before the sacrament if certain words are used. Even if a bishop refuses a reservation license, all the abuses of continuous reservation become possible by easy contrivances. Continuous reservation only arises because some of the clergy contend that they can receive communion only when fasting, thereby implying that non-fusting communion is sinful. Yet the bishops rejected the proposal re-affirming the church’s undoubted teaching that nonfasting communion is not sinful, and also rejected repeated suggestions as to withholding from the lawless clergy, payments from the ecclesiastical commissioners and Queen Anne’s bounty. ” The House of Commons during the historic debate showed a religious sincerity and goodwill towards the church. 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 proposals. The episcopal majority may then say that if we cannot have continuous reservation, etc., we must ask for disestablishment. 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 would be ruined.” A FRESH STORM. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY REOPENS. LONDON, January 21. There are already signs that the new Prayer Book changes will arouse a fresh storm of controversy. The trend of the comment indicates that the opposition m<>.y even be stronger than before, because the alterations are regarded as negligible. xAnglo-Catholics will certainly resist the new rubric, while Protestants condemn the action of the bishops as being a challenge to the House of Commons. Bishop Barnes’s long statement has been given prominence, and will inevitably rally’ all forces in opposition. Souna authorities are of the opinion that it will be most difficult for the archbishops to get the measure through the Church Assembly and convocations in time for present’ Parliament before Whitsunside. The Morning Post says -. “We cannot avoid regretting that the perfectly legitimate action of the House of Commons should be taken up by leaders of the church as a gage of .battle. The issue, however, is now decided. The conflict must end in the briefest period, in either a new and more significant rebuff to Episcopacy or the passage of a measure which, as it stands, offends the conscience of a very large number of loyal members of the Anglican Church.” The Daily Telegraph says: "In view of their pledges to make no fundamental changes, and their acute consciousness of the strength of Protestant feeling, the bishops have made what is nrobably the best emergence from their dilemma, but it cannot be said to hold much promise of satisfying any but a few of the malcontents. If, as seems likely, it makes new opponents, then the last state is worse than the first.”