Replies

Please refer to post 29 in response to your statement to me under another thread which read:

"Of course, for a Roman Catholic, there's one very big difference between the Catholic Mass and the 1979 BCP Rite II: the round white thing on the altar in the Episcopalian church is a piece of bread; the round white thing on the altar in the Catholic church is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ."

Anglican orders were infallibly declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th Century. (He was speaking of Anglican orders in the original line descended from the Elizabethan-era bishops. Some Anglican clerics can trace their ordination back to validly-ordained Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops, and they may be validly ordained.)

An invalidly ordained priest is not a priest, but a layman, and is thus incapable of confecting a valid Eucharist. That is beyond dispute the common faith of both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Now you can disagree about the invalidity of Anglican orders, but Catholics in communion with the See of Rome are not free to do so. Hence (with the exception I noted above), we do not and cannot consider the Anglican Eucharist to be anything more than a piece of bread. (If it's any consolation to you, there are some factions within Orthodoxy which say exactly the same thing about our Eucharist.)

By the way, your aside, "As you know, Roman Catholic laypeople do not partake of the Lord's Cup" is quite dated. In fact, the provision of the Eucharist under both forms is positively promoted under the new Rite (though we continue to believe that one receives the whole Christ whether one receives under one form or both).