I thought there were some really good items in the October AD2000. I mention in particular Bishop Elliott's meaty article on the remedying of the English in the Liturgy. How poorly served we the faithful were by the ecclesiastic mandarins who presided over our post-conciliar liturgical 'renewal'! And this was all imposed on us in the structures of Church obedience. Don't misread me. I am not a 'traditionalist' who will only hear of the 1962 Missal.
I found David Robart's long review of the book on converts, The Path to Rome, very interesting, given his own position. Personally I find it incredible that any Catholic-minded Anglican who looks intently at the progressive deformation of the Eucharistic Prayer by Cranmer could seriously believe in the validity of Anglican orders, even provisionally.
Even if you were validly ordained by some process (Old Catholics?), using an Anglican Eucharistic Prayer, it would surely be an invalid act. For Cranmer's changes were awful, representing a patent disowning of essential elements of the ancient eucharistic faith and practice of the Church, both East and West.
I attended an Anglican eucharist early this year, celebrated by the nicest, most well meaning of people, and couldn't believe what I heard, or failed to hear. I felt really sorry for them. Of course, the idea was, by a smokescreen of elegant and plausible words, to subjectivise belief in the Real Presence (to put the best construction on it). But no amount of private subjective feeling will make it so. Other factors are necessary for that.
ANNA M. SILVAS (DR)
School of Humanities
University of New England, NSW