I WAS very interested in the letters by Mr Charleton and Mr Drake (July 27) simply because they express a truth which is too often lost in a welter of ecumenical sentiment.
It is true. of course. that it small number of clerge has tvished to repari the breach vi ith Rome over since tt occurred in 1535 and it k possible to supply. names of individual -eorporate reunionists.' from the seventeenth century onwards. Bei the at remains that suet' improaches are fundamentally unreal and the rejection of the cuileopi of women priests by the clerey irsy nod does nothing to create
At risk of repeating Old material. may I point out that, sinve 1535, the Anglican view of authority has been that of the Crown? The royal supreteay meant the • end of ans. Catholic conception of canon law, liven today. the authority for the existence of the Anglican synod is nothing more than the Crown in Parliament.
Thus, the Church of England as newts created in 1535 k nothing more lh011 Lin Erastian sect. However brutal such a conclusion. it is unavoidahle, Both Er. Clark and Mr Michael Diivies afford me authority by their llritingg for saying that the Ilietual C,Isc against Anglican orders as
explored in 1S96 remains unaltered and LII1,11:Iken.
1 he conclusions drawn at the Mae
by. t Vaaehan b.ic reiniaried proot against liirther discussion.
Before Anglican can he spoken of as drilling Ro'mewards in any real sense valid orders must be recovered. a valid attitude towards Catholic authority come into operation after l'our centuries and a valid exposition OF the Mass and the Real Presence possess the Anglican mind.
Nor must it he forgotten that Anglo-Catholicism k a mere exotic within Anglicanism. The majority ol Church of England clergy do not look upon themselves as Catholic priests in the Roman Catholic sense of the term, nor do their laity receive them as such For example, the late Dean ol Bristol declared in a work on the Book of Common Prayer that the Edwardine ordinal was designed to produce some form of ministrv other than that of a sacerdotal priesthood. laespite a new implication of Old titles such as "priest". the cooteueions of Dean Harrison can scarcely be said Is) he out of accord wish hietory .
Thee express the lott church or majority all from the days of Crannier's esposition of his sacramental heresies until not... It is not ttithout significance that 13can
larrison's book wits prefaced by the then Bishop of Sothicand Man.
eVhen I look at some modern bkhope who ruled over this diocese. it mould probably he impossible to obtain greater examples of episcopal ignorince and bigotry. Yet, they were picelly low church to a man and neter slackened in their ,cal for mak IFT itt icks cm any form of Cathtaism!
The whole incident of Dean Harrison's book is an apt illustration of the unreality of talking about Anglicans, other than a few individuals, moving over to Rome.
If any clergy or laity are so disturbed by the fallacies of the
Anglican 11151 km as to be drifting Rornewards, their course is clear. 1 here can he no corporate reunion. As Cardinal Vaughan saw clearly, there is open to them the path of individual submission, the road taken by evere. convert. clerical or LAY. from the ria)s or the RelOrmation until the Fm resent time.
Such and numie other is the way along which St. Thomas More and St, John Fisher beckon them.
J. I I. Amphlett Micklewright South Nom mod I I ill.
London St .25