Thanks for engaging with me, Ebor.
You're welcome. It's a pleasure to discuss and not be ranted or sneered at.
The question is "Do you believe that your church's communion is the Real Presence (i.e., the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ)?" I think the answer is "yes." Most Protestants (with the notable exception of Lutherans) say "no." But I don't understand how an Anglican answers this question. It's a yes or no question, which is why I find the Anglican answer frustrating (i.e, I don't like the answer itself).
Thank you for explaining. But is it really a "yes or no question"? What about "I don't know."? or "It is, but it is also bread and wine."? Some people prefer hard plain answers and others can be at ease with a degree of uncertainty, it seems to me.
Also, you are asking this question of individual persons who (at least here and those you might have known in person) are part of the laity. Or you might have asked a priest, too. But these would all be individuals rather then the Voice of the Anglican Communion. It makes me wonder, and I'm not trying to be rude with this, whether there is such uniformity in the RC. Or if an RC person at mass said that he/she didn't know if there was the Real Presence but they're supposed to come and partake because that's what they were taught, so they do, would that make them ummm "not really RC?" or that they should not partake?
The Anglican answer seems to me to be "some of us think it is, some of us don't."
That is only part of the answer. And there are many things that happen without people fully understanding them or that are not affected by a person's opinion. I could think that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't affect the real Earth or it's physical form. Also, my thinking would be wrong about it's shape, but I would still be experiencing the real things on it.
This is your view, which I like. But in many in your church do not believe this.
Or, to use the example I mentioned above, maybe they do not understand it on the same level as you do or they are not ready to fully accept the idea, but they do want to obey the words of Jesus so they "Take and eat". I do not know what people believe in their deepest being. But it could be that God touches each person that seeks him in a way that they can, in their human limitations, respond to. If a person is coming back to Christianity after a long time away and is searching but might be confused or uncertain, the little steps God-ward are better then not trying at all because a huge leap that she/he doesn't think can be done is demanded by another human being.
Ask an EO or RC my initial question (Is it RP?) and the answer is always "yes."
Well, see my question to you above.
But your church seems to allow its members is to disagree and remain members in good standing.
Families are like that, or should be, at least on some points of disagreement, and sometimes a member does go 'off the track' but locking him out might not be the right way to help him see his error. And it depends on the situation; we're not as 'free-wheeling' as some would think we are. Not everything is a binary situation in life, I think that more things are more 'grey' then easy 'black and white'.
and then again there are procedures and ways that things are dealt with.
Hmm, I guess I mean believe. "Do you believe in RP?"
This suddenly reminded me of a joke a former Baptist once told me: "A Texas Baptist is once asked if he believes in the existance of Infant Baptism. He replies, "Heck yes, I've seen it done."
I'm not trying to be difficult, just that 'belief' has different applications.
And by that change of word then my Church does believe in the Real Presence; it is the official belief of the Anglican Communion that there is the Real Presence in our Eucharists, not in the 'substance and accidents' Aristotelian-Transubstatiantion mode, but Real nonetheless. Consubstantiation is the model.
Please forgive me if this is too personal, but it seems that you're trying to nail down that Anglicans don't have the Body and the Blood, though we believe that our Eucharist is just that, though not in the same terms as the RC. Is this the case or am I mis-reading (which I freely admit is possible). Also, this seems to be of some importance to you; could you possibly explain if this is the case and why, please? If you prefer to not answer, I apologize for asking and withdraw the question.
I hope that I have made this clear. It is church doctrine in RC and EO that communion is RP, no qualifications
like "in effect;" it is RP. In the Anglican Church, you appear free to believe whatever you want about RP.
It is our doctrine as well. Yet all of these Churches are made up of millions of individual Human Beings with their own thoughts and beliefs. I'm probably not being very clear here, but it seems to me that in your posting you're classifying EO and RC as groups while for the Anglicans you are speaking of individuals. I need to re-read this and ponder a bit more maybe.
I am not arguing about the mechanics of it. You guys do fine with that.
Well, we have that part right, at least.
I hope very much that nothing I have written has offended you or been too personal. It is not my intent at all to do that. I'm just trying to work out the ideas and clarify what we mean in this topic.
edited to improve some syntax