Incorrect view of the Mass

I AM GLAD you quoted the Dean of Canterbury's sensible comments (Jan 30) in response to the statement by the Secretary of the 'Protestant Reformation Society'. I also believe Mr Samuel to be quite mistaken in his assessment.
For a number of reasons, historical, social and theological, The Church of England contains within its ranks people with a wide range of Christian opinions. This is basically true of any Christian denomination, am pleased however that Mr Samuel referred to the 39 Articles. The Book of Common Prayer properly understood is not anticatholic (whether 'Orthodox', 'Roman', or 'Anglican'). It is judiciously framed to avoid many popular misunderstandings and equally avoids commitment to Puritanism. Article 31 which he mentions. carefully says "the ... sacrifices of Masses ..." both in the plural.
What it is condemning was the popular view that each Mass was a new and propitiatory sacrifice, numerically cumulative in effect, which somehow 'bought off' an angry God.
1 am reliably informed that the definitive Latin translation of the 39 Articles makes this clearer still. The charge that Anglican priests are not ordained to offer sacrifice is not substantiated by reference to leading Anglican divines.
In particular the reply Saepius Officio in 1897 by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Papal Bull Apostolicae Carat' explicitly refutes such a claim at least from the authoritative Anglican position. Robin Martin Buxworth Cheshire