SYNOD ON THE PRAYERBOOK.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume 26, Issue 11, 1 November 1936, Page 2

SYNOD ON THE PRAYERBOOK.

A very interesting debate took place on the motion of Mr. G. C. Williams that it be a recommendation to next General Synod to authorise the 1928 Prayer-Book for use throughout the Church of England m New Zealand. The mover said: "The variety and enrichment of the daily services and the use of the occasional prayers designed to meet modern needs," he said m support of his motion, "will add both interest and reality to the services." Mr. Williams referred to the great improvement that had been made m the occasional services, particularly m the baptism and marriage services. The unreality of the latter, he said, was done away with by the alteration of the wording of the vows. Which of us to-day, he asked* wanted a submissive and obedient wife? Men looked for a help-mate, not a slave. And what man to-day endowed his wife with all his worldly goods? Everyone felt, however, that the real difficulty of the matter lay m the Holy Communion service. He himself had been brought up m loyalty to the old school, but he recognised that the suspicion of any-

thing m the way of alteration and the intolerance of the past were changing into a broader and more tolerant spirit. The question of the reservation of the sacrament, he added, was a difficult and debatable point. Sick people were often not strong enough to listen to the whole service of consecration, and he thought that the new book offered opportunity for improvement m this respect. Adoration of the sacrament was expressly forbidden m the new book, and rubrics gave precise direction as to how the sacred emblems were to be kept for sick communions. He thought that the adoption of the book would lead to order and discipline m the Church and prevent the disorders and want of discipline which were creeping into the Church at Home. After a lively debate, the Bishop summed up by saying he realised that the question was one m which a great responsibility rested upon him. As the father m God of clergy and laity alike he felt to them as a father to his own family m the flesh. He himself, like Mr. Williams, was brought up m the old school. He did not like party names, but they were a large family and they had different notions, and likes and dislikes. He felt that there was some misunderstanding on the part of those who opposed the motion. The circumstances as laid down m the constitution were not definitely stated. This had been brought before Synod at various times. He himself had always opposed ajterations because he felt that General Synod was not the authority to decide the question. In 1913 General Synod appealed to Parliament, and it decided that General Synod could alter the fundamental clauses, but it introduced a special tribunal to safeguard the minority. With regard to the Holy Communion service, he said he saw m the new book great impovements. There were details m which some of the prayers might be improved. He would rather see the bishops draw up a new service adopting improvements which had been incorporated m other new services.

He whole-heartedly supported the motion because he felt the difficulty of the bishops m enforcing discipline under the 1662 book. That was the reason for the drawing-up of the 1928 book. Dealing with reservation, he pointed out that it was not part of the -service of Holy Communion. It was provided for m the rubric. He had always felt that the Church was under a mistake that reservation was forbidden under the old book. The apparent forbiddance was contained m the rubric regarding the remaining bread and wine. The intentions of the rubric was not to deprive the sick from receiving sustenance but was intended to prevent desecration of the sacred elements. If they did agree to the motion and asked General Synod to agree to the authorisation, then those who disagreed would have the opportunity to appeal the tribunal provided. He hoped that those who objected would m true Christian spirit not plrevent those who felt that they would get great benefit from its use m so doing. The motion was carried on a division. Clergy: Ayes, 29; Noes, 10. Laity: Ayes, 18; Noes, ■11. It may be explained that supposing General Synod agrees to the idea, which is doubtful, the procedure, is this: Any proposals carried by the General Synod of 1937 will be sent to the seven Diocesan Synods. If a majority of them approve, the General Synod of 1940 will be required to pass the proposals by a two-thirds majority of each order before they become law. In the meanwhile, anyone feeling a grievance can appeal to a tribunal set up for the purpose.