SIR,—I wonder whether you will allow me to place a
postscript to this correspondence ? It cannot be more than that, since your original contributor, Mr. James, and now Mr. Pumfrett are so wrong in their whole approach to the matter that it is impossible to get to grips with their arguments in one short letter.
It is apparent, for example, that both believe that the Church of England is divided into three parts—a central body and two extreme wings denominated ' High' and ' Low.' This is a purely superficial judge- ment. As a matter of fact, every baptised Anglican is automatically and ex hypothesi an Anglo-Catholic: that many do not realise this because they have never really read their Book of Common Prayer—all of it—does not alter the fact.
Failure to grasp this fundamental leads to all sorts of irrelevancies. When Mr. James says that the orthodox Roman Catholic Church (sic) looks with disdain upon Anglicans who imitate the habiliments and devotional methods of a Communion which they arc supposed in theory to repudiate: when he says that Evangelicals hold that Grace and Favour are open to all and do not mediate per Sacerclotem: when he flies off at a tangent and asks ' Why should a certain part of the liturgy be rendered in the natural voice and anoth!r part be intoned ? '—he just gives himself away. I am afraid he is not merely irrelevant; he is what the RAF would call ' clueless.'
Mr. Pumfrett in your last issue is more sweetly reasonable—until he writes: ' After all, the Church service is an aid to worship and every worshipper must surely know what kind of service helps him most.' I am sure this sentence was intended to convey charitableness and broadmindedness on Mr. Pumfrett's part. I am also sure that both parts of the sentence as written are simply not true.—Yours faithfully, LESLIE KING
19 Brabourne Rise, Beckenham
Previous page
