Sir,--As an Anglican priest who has become one of your regular readers because of your keen support for better relations between Christians of differing ecclesiastical allegiances, I have been a little surprised by remarks made, probably quite unintentionally, in some of your reporting.
in your issues of May 28 (page 8), and June 4 (page 10), you stated that "Mass will be said in the grounds of Glastonbury Abbey, Somerset, on July 4 for the first time since the Reform
tioln'. In your issue of June 11, in your report on "Church Sharing", you said: "In the small township of Bletchingley . . plans have recently been mooted for the sharing of an Anglican Church by Catholics".
Such remarks cause distress to many Anglicans. Our conviction is that the Holy Eucharist has been celebrated many times at Glastonbury since the Reformation. With regard to Bletchingley, Anglicans are not unreasonably sensnive when the distinction is drawn between themselves and "Catholics". I need not remind you that while the word "Protestant" never occurs in the Book of Common Prayer, the word "Catholic" frequently does. The Anglican Church claims to be the Catholic Church of this country.
I am sure that no deliberate discourtesy was intended by your remarks; your reporting of Angli can affairs is notably both charitable and fair. I ant also aware of the continuing difficulty created by the 1897 Decree on Anglican Orders which you have naturally to uphold, with all its implications. May I make two suggestions; if it was possible for you to act upon them Anglican distress would he removed?
One is that in reports on Anglican affairs in which you include the word "Catholic", this word be replaced by "Roman Catholic".
The other is that you refer to Anglicans as "Episcopalians". This description of Anglicans. to distinguish them from "Protestants" is used in Africa and I first saw it in the Church History written by the Roman Catholic Fathers of Likuni Mission . in Malawi.
With regard to Glastonbury, Anglican anxiety would he removed it it was possible for you to insert the words "according to the Roman Catholic rite" after the word "Mass".
In all ecumenical discussions, it is obviously essential that convictions he preserved and fundamental doctrines maintained. It is equally important that this be done in a way that avoids judgments by implication on those with whom we at present disagree. I am hoping that the suggestions
have made meet, from your viewpoint, both these requirements.
(Canon) Edward A. Maycox, Cambridge. House Mass Sir,—The celebration of Mass in a house in Edgware, reported in the CA1HOLIC HERALD on June 4, seems to us a tremendous step forward. There is little doubt that this and the meal following must help to restore the sense of the Eucharist as a community action. For the Mass, of course, grew out of a common meal and out of the everyday experience of life; it was not, as so often today, a formal activity hardly related to everyday living.
It scents a pity, therefore, that so much trouble was taken to make the house an imitation church: the altar (a sideboard, not a table) against the wall; the priest with his back to the people; the rows of chairs; the veils, etc.
How much better, surely for the people to be grouped informally around the celebrant, because, after all, the Mass isn't a private individual affair. as it is made to seem when people are organised into isolation from one another. There should be no essential difference in atmosphere between the Mass and the meal which follows.
We are offering these suggestions only because the idea is in itself so worthwhile in creating community. Please let us have more of this.
Leo and Dympna Pyle, Dorking, Surrey
Sir, — I read the Camorot: HERALD every week with pleasure and benefit, but this week's issue (lime 11) appals me. Is the picture of the poor, unhappy friar intended to boost an advert. or is it intended to show that even religious can he "with it" and not lag behind professional smugglers, etc.?
If he has transgressed he wilt pay the legal penalty. but surely your readers, humiliated and pained as we all must feel, cannot wish for the wide publicity you are giving the matter. If he is proved innocent his picture should certainly be published. Meanwhile he is under a terrible cloud and in his anguish of soul which should be respected, he will have the prayers of a great many of us.
(Miss) A. Christitch London, E.C.I.
Karl Rahner Sir,—Returning from abroad, I was delighted to find my piece on Karl Refiner published in your issue of May 21. But I fear it is hardly fair to such distinguished and hard.working translators as Cecily Hastings, Cornelius Ernst. and Karl-H, Kruger to say that I have translated "many" of Rahner's works, I have translated one short hook and am engaged at the moment on an essay of his.
Long ago, before Rahner became fashionable in this country, I did endeavour to indicate his importance in two lengthy articles in the Downside Review, At that time (1950-55), I turned down the request of a far-seeing publisher to translate Rattner: 1, because I honestly thought that the hulk of his work was for theologians only, who ought to be able to read German; 2, because the task seemed, if not beyond my powers, at any rate beyond my inclinations.
(Rev.) Edward Quinn, Rotherham, Yorks.