The narrator of Barbara Pym's Excellent Women is Mildred Lathburn, a clergyman's daughter in 1950s London. Here, Mildred's Welsh cleaning lady, Mrs. Morris, is complaining half-humorously about the High Anglican tendencies of their vicar, who wears a biretta while preaching:
"It isn't like the church I went to as a girl, where Mr. Lewis was vicar. He didn't have incense or wear that old black hat."
"No, I don't suppose he did," I agreed, for I knew the seaside town she came from and I remembered the "English" church, unusual among so many chapels, with the Ten Commandments in Welsh and in English on either side of the altar and a special service on Sunday morning for the visitors. I did not remember that they had expected or received "Catholic privileges."
"I was always church," said Mrs. Morris proudly. "Never been in the chapel, though I did once go to the Ebenezer social, but I don't want to have anything to do with some old Pope."
Pym, Barbara. Excellent Women. 1952. Penguin Classics, introduction by A. N. Wilson. New York: Penguin, 2006. p. 18
I understand that most Welsh Christians are nonconformists, going to chapel rather than church, whereas Mrs. Morris has always been Anglican. I also understand that Anglicans of other stripes are often wary of High Anglican ritual, considering it too close to Roman Catholicism for comfort. But what does the sentence "I did not remember that they had expected or received 'Catholic privileges'" mean?
Edited in response to the answer from Spagirl and the comments from Kate Bunting and tallus. Despite the answer and the comments, I still don't understand the sentence mentioned above. Here are my points of confusion:
The article @tallus links to in their comment talks about confession being necessary for Catholics before communion, but I thought that this was a specifically Roman Catholic requirement. Is it the case that for Anglo-Catholics specifically, auricular confession is a requisite for the "privilege" of receiving the Eucharist? My understanding heretofore has been that in Anglicanism, High or otherwise, any baptized Christian, irrespective of the tradition in which the baptism occurred, is entitled to take Communion. I would welcome some specific evidence for the claim that at the time of the novel (or rather, at the time that Mildred is recalling, i.e., her childhood visit to Wales, which would have been the 1930s), communion in Anglo-Catholicism was a privilege open only to those who had been shriven.†
I continue not to understand the phrase "Catholic privileges" here, or in the quote from Anglicans Online in @Spagirl's answer. Are those "privileges" daily communion, sung eucharist, confessions, and eucharistic reservation, as @KateBunting's comment says? Even if taking communion is a specific privilege to which only those who have made confession are entitled, what makes the other three "privileges"?
I'm not even sure what the antecedent of "they" is. @KateBunting suggests that "they" refers to the Welsh church Mrs Morris attended, but I don't see how that works grammatically. As the sentence stands, it appears to refer to the visitors at the special service. In either case, what is the relevance of "Catholic privileges" here, either to that church or to said visitors?
Finally, is Mildred saying: (1) "I had forgotten that 'they' had expected and received 'Catholic privileges'", or (2) "To my recollection, 'they' did not expect or receive said 'privileges'"? "I did not remember that" could carry either of those two entirely opposed meanings.
Theologically, as Spagirl says, the assumption is that the phrase "Catholic privileges" is transparent to the reader, and as someone who has never been any stripe of Christian, I'm quite befogged. Grammatically, the (to me) unclear antecedent of "they" is confusing. And semantically, the inherent ambiguity of "I did not remember that" adds to the foggy confusion. Can someone clarify? Thanks!
†I attended services once at Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver, BC, which I gather is High Anglican—I doubt "low" churches designate themselves "Cathedral." The then Dean specifically invited all baptized Christians of any denomination to participate in the Eucharistic rite. I do understand that for historical reasons even High Anglican theology is designed to be, let's say, flexible, and that the practice of one Dean in one Canadian Cathedral in this century cannot be taken as representative of the practice at a Welsh church a century prior. That the male Dean in question was (and is) married to a man itself underlines the impossibility of assuming any such doctrinal continuity. Nevertheless, in the absence of specific evidence, I am not convinced that Anglo-Catholics have ever considered communion a restricted privilege rather than one open to all Christians.
--