The petitioner in the above case, having been refused permission to appeal by the Commissary General, renewed his application to the Court of Arches. He was unsuccessful, the court giving full reasons for its refusal. As a decision on an application for permission to appeal, it is confined to its facts.
The grounds of appeal rested on the question whether the use of an existing Holy Table as a nave altar required the authorisation of a faculty. Canon F1 provided that a faculty was required if any additions, removals, or repairs were proposed to be made in the fabric, ornaments, or furniture of the church. The present case was not covered by those provisions. Indeed, the 1603 Canons envisioned or required the regular movement of the Holy Table for the celebration of Holy Communion. Canon F2 provides for the resolution of any dispute as to the location the Holy Table by the Ordinary, not by the court. It followed that there was no jurisdiction to grant a restoration order in this case because the periodic movement and use of the article as a nave altar did not constitute the commission of an act which was unlawful under ecclesiastical law (section 72 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018).
